Slope Stability and Landuse Improving PL

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.
uk brought to you by CORE

provided by UC Research Repository
new zealand centre for advanced engineering
Slope Stability & Landuse

Improving Planning Practice
www.caenz.com
Slope Stability & Landuse
Improving Planning Practice
A report commissioned by the New Zealand Earthquake

Commission under its ‘Science to Practice’ Programme.
September 2009
Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

CAENZ is an independent-think tank and research facilitator funded by grants and sponsor-
ships. CAENZ’s mission is to advance social progress and economic growth for New Zealand
through broadening national understanding of emerging technologies and facilitating early
adoption of advanced technology solutions.
www.caenz.com
Prepared by: Kristin Hoskin
Approved by:
RJ (George) Hooper
Issued: September 2009
Recommended Citation
CAENZ 2009b
ISBN 978-0-908993-05-5
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted,
or otherwise disseminated, in any form or by any means, except for the purposes of research or private study,
criticism or review, without the prior permission of the Centre for Advanced Engineering.
Copyright
©2009 New Zealand Centre for Advanced Engineering
Address for Correspondence

New Zealand Centre for Advanced Engineering
University of Canterbury Campus
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch
New Zealand
Phone: +64 3 364 2478 Fax: +63 3 364 2069 landslip@caenz.com
Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CAENZ would like to acknowledge the time and American Planning Association
support given in contributing to this project; James Schwab
specifically
Riley Consultants Limited
Project Sponsor Ed Ladley

Earthquake Commission TJ Day & Associates
Hugh Cowan Terry Day
Riddolls Consultants Limited

Project Team
New Zealand Centre for Advanced Engineering Bruce Riddolls
Kristin Hoskin (Project Manager) Clive Manley Consulting Limited

Scott Caldwell Clive Manley
GNS Science Department of Building & Housing
Wendy Saunders David Hopkins
Kelvin Berryman
Ministry for the Environment
Andrew King
Stephen Swabey
Phil Glassey
David Johnston
Peer Review
Hutt City Council (HCC) Department of Building & Housing
Geoff Stuart David Hopkins
Paul Nickalls
Ian R Brown Associates Ltd
Jamie Beban
Ian Brown
Far North District Council (FNDC)
Ministry for Civil Defence & Emergency Man-
Patrick Schofield
agement
Pat Killalea
Clive Manley Peter Wood
Tonkin & Taylor Victoria University
Nick Rogers Prof Michael Crozier

Stephen Crawford Whakatane District Council
Diane Turner
Terminology used in this report

The main focus of this report is on slope stability. Slope stability does not necessarily constitute slope
failure. In contrast, the terms landslide or landslip, which do constitute slope failure, are often used inter-
changeably.
The term landslide refers to “the movement of a mass of rock, debris or earth (soil) down a slope” (AGS,
2007a). The term ‘natural landslip’ is a term defined by the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 as “the
movement (whether by way of falling, sliding or flowing, or by a combination thereof ) of ground-forming
materials composed of natural rock, soil, artificial fill, or a combination of such materials, which before
movement, formed an integral part of the ground; but does not include the movement of the ground due
to below-ground subsidence, soil expansion, soil shrinkage, soil compaction, or erosion.”
In this report the term landslip is used in preference to landslide when referring specifically to slope
failure, the exception being when referencing other documents that use the term landslide.

Page Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice
PREFACE
An essential element in determining whether The lessons are simple; improved information
land use planning and consenting processes sharing, better communication about potential
meet good practice expectations is the hazards and new frameworks that extend
degree to which professional knowledge accountability to those best able to manage the
and institutional processes are aligned. risks of inadequate assessment or ill-informed
Participants in the planning process need to action. In drawing together the experience of a
be aware of the critical points for intervention wide range of practitioners and the experience
and their respective roles in managing relevant of two territorial authorities this study offers an
knowledge and its application to decision objective view of the issues that New Zealand
outcomes. faces in planning future land use in the presence of
natural hazards.
This study has taken an important step in
trying to delineate where that balance might Adoption of the study recommendations would
lie and in building a “process map” of the undoubtedly contribute to more effective
steps and factors influencing consented land management of slope stability risk and the
use activity as applied to landslip prone land. advancement of professional practice in this area.
Through this approach the study team has set
out to demystify professional practice and to I commend the report to you.
provide practical suggestions for improving
current approaches to slope stability risk
assessment in New Zealand.
Richard Westlake
Chairman Standards New Zealand

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ...........................................................................................................................5
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................9
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................11
1.1 Background....................................................................................................................................... 11
1.2 Understanding the problem ............................................................................................................. 13
1.3 Study objectives .............................................................................................................................. 14
2. Methodology ..............................................................................................................15
2.1 Approach .......................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Case studies .................................................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Integrating the outcomes ................................................................................................................ 17
3. Research Findings ......................................................................................................19

3.1 Overview of the case studies .......................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Survey Results ................................................................................................................................. 20
4. Lessons from the Study .............................................................................................29

4.1 Sharing of information ..................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Raising awareness of slope stability as an issue ........................................................................... 30
4.3 Extending accountability ................................................................................................................. 31
5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................33
5.1 Short term/immediate implementation opportunities ..................................................................... 33
5.2 Longer term implementation opportunities .................................................................................... 33
References and Bibliography.........................................................................................35

Appendices ....................................................................................................................37

ExECUTIVE SUMMARy
The New Zealand Earthquake Commission Key findings of this study are that:
(EQC) provides national disaster insurance to • There is a view that all land can be
residential properties throughout New Zealand. safely engineered to make it suitable for
This includes damage caused by landslips. EQC development. This view is not consistent
exposure to natural disaster claims arising from with reality;
landslips is significant, for example amounting • While the understanding of how to reduce
to some $18 million in the 2008 year, with an landslip risk has increased over time, many
average annual cost over the last five years of professionals employed by developers
$16.6 million. and councils have not kept up with these
advances;
As part of its active role in advancing New • Geotechnical information pertaining to
Zealand resilience to natural disaster damage, various regions is held by a number of
EQC supports research and education about organisations without all parties being aware
matters relevant to reducing natural disaster of, or having access to it;
damage, and in particular the adoption of • Accountability for ensuring effective decision-
relevant new research by practitioners. Thus, making methods of the consenting process
whilst not an EQC issue alone, the Commission does not always lie where the advice that
saw advantage in bringing a study together to the process depends upon is given;
address the quality of decision making for the • A raised awareness that slope stability
use of landslip prone land and, in particular, is an issue, and improved education and
to give consideration to improving land use information sharing, is a prerequisite to
planning practices for those parts of New improved land use planning.
Zealand where slope stability is a significant Observations made by the project team during
problem. the course of this study, and direct contributions
from planners and related professionals through
This study, undertaken by the New Zealand
the workshops and survey have identified
Centre for Advanced Engineering (CAENZ),
a range of opportunities for improvements
adopted a two-fold approach to researching
to the planning process. Foremost amongst
current land use practice, and comparing this
them is the need for an integrated approach
with what may be considered good practice.
to the problem and better coordination to
Firstly, documentation held by two case study
improve communication and collaboration.
councils, Far North District and Hutt City, was
Recommendations are made for both near term
examined in order to ascertain the influence
and medium term implementation.
that available tools and their application have
had on improving professional practice and, The recommendations focus on three key areas
second, a series of surveys and workshops for action:
were held in order to provide context to the • Improved information sharing;
relationships between the different disciplines • Raising the profile of slope stability risk,
contributing to the land use decision process. and;
• Extending accountability.
The lessons from these two work streams have
then been synthesised into a ‘process map’ Adoption or action upon these recommendations
illustrating how slope stability information is not the responsibility of any single
gets incorporated into the decision-making organisation or profession. Instead the report
process, and the ways in which these sources suggests a framework for going forward that
of information can contribute to improved encourages all stakeholders to take a proprietary
understanding and a higher quality of decision interest in dealing with and improving
making. approaches to slope stability risk throughout the
country.
Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 9

1. INTRODUCTION
“Experience shows that despite engineering opportunities for improvement and ultimately;
solutions, natural processes ultimately will lead to a reduction in the exposure to
determine whether a structure and the land it landslip risk.
stands on fails or not. Determining the balance
In reviewing land use planning several statutes
between allowing people to develop or use
need to be considered. Each can be linked
land and restricting their exposure to natural
through the Regional Policy Statement from
hazards in a sometimes rapidly changing
which are devised both Regional and District
landscape is complex” (CAENZ, 200).
Plans (as shown in Figure 1). And thus,
how these statutes are interpreted in the
1.1 Background appropriate plans adds to the complexity of
addressing slope stability through normal land
Slope stability is an issue for many parts of
use planning channels. These can be differently
New Zealand. Steep slopes, tectonics and
applied across the country.
rainfall are the main causes of slope failure.
However, the vulnerability of the land to slope Of these statutes, three feature prominently:
failure can be increased by inappropriate
use; thereby exposing people, property, and • The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
infrastructure to increased risk. has as its purpose to promote sustainable
management of natural and physical
Landslips, the result of slope failure, represent resources. Under the RMA, local authorities
one of the most frequently experienced natural are tasked to control land for the purpose
hazards in New Zealand. Last year alone, of avoidance of natural hazards and control
the Earthquake Commission (EQC) received the actual or potential affects of land use
through the avoidance of natural hazards.
over 1300 landslip natural disaster claims
(Earthquake Commission, 2008). • The Civil Defence Emergency Management
Act 2002 (CDEM Act) was written as a
This study extends upon two previous studies result of reviews of the 1983 Civil Defence
that addressed the improvement of practice Act, in part so as to ensure the effective
in the management of landslip risk; (Riddolls management of all hazards facing New
& Grocott Ltd., 1999), (CAENZ, 2007). Like Zealand. This includes the reduction of risk
these previous two studies, this study was exposure.
commissioned by EQC as part of its active • The Building Act 2004 outlines
role in advancing New Zealand’s resilience to requirements1 for the construction of
natural disaster damage. structures. Protection from, and not
worsening the effect of natural hazards are
The focus of this study is to understand how considered as part of these requirements.
slope stability is considered in current land use
and planning practice. 1 Sections 31-39 detail requirements of project information
memorandum (PIMs) and that special features, including
For the management of landslip risks to natural hazards are included (Section 35) as information
relevant to proposed building work. Under Section 41 an
be improved, it is necessary to have an exemption to the requirement to obtain building consents
understanding of how actual planning practice may be applied to urgent work such as could occur follow-
ing a natural hazard event if it is for the purpose of saving
is influenced by considerations of slope or protecting life or serious damage to property. Sections
71-74 of the Building Act 2004 detail the limitations and
stability. The need to consider natural hazards restrictions on building consents: Construction of building
in land use planning is well recognised. on land subject to natural hazards. Once an event has
impacted a building it may be subject to requirements
However, the degree to which such knowledge under subpart 6 of the Act - Special provisions for certain
is translated into effective land use planning categories of buildings addresses dangerous, earthquake
prone and insanitary buildings, with Sections 121-123
is commonly acknowledged to be variable. defining these categories of building, while Sections 124-
Gaining a greater understanding, therefore, of 130 provide the powers of territorial authorities in respect
of dangerous, earthquake-prone, or insanitary buildings.
why practice varies provides useful insight into Sections 131 and 132 provide the requirements for policy
on dangerous, earthquake-prone and insanitary buildings.

Figure : The complex relationships between legislation for managing natural hazards. From Saunders and
Glassey, 200
Collectively these Acts place a significant duty • Planning for Natural Hazard Risk in the
on local authorities, and others, to apply rigour Built Environment (CAENZ, 2004) addressed
to land use planning where natural hazard risk key factors and considerations deemed
is present. to be important for good decision making
around natural hazard issues. In particular,
Local authorities implement these requirements the report identified issues such as
through Civil Defence Emergency Management storage of, and access to, publicly funded
(CDEM) Group Plans and Long-Term Council information and the capacity for improved
Community Plans (LTCCPs). It is imperative that interaction between local authorities,
science providers and other experts. This
sound risk reduction policies are prominent
study emphasised the importance of
in these plans. Consistency between CDEM
ensuring that qualified expertise, sound
Group Plans and the LTCCPs is crucial to
processes and readily accessible data and
the implementation of successful reduction information are used to inform decision-
measures. Recognition of this requirement making.
has led to a number of studies and guidance
• Managing Landslip Risk: Improving Practice
documents within the last decade.
(CAENZ, 2007) was a broad based study
The following is a brief summary of studies commissioned by EQC, that extended upon
that have improved and informed planning for the earlier work. It identified how current
slope stability in recent years. investments and practices in landslip risk
management could be improved across
• Assessment of Geotechnical and the range of government, private and
Development Factors involved in EQC professional organisations involved. A
landslip Claims (Riddolls & Grocott Ltd, suggested integrated risk management
1999) was an EQC commissioned study of framework (Appendix 1) that could allow
the geotechnical and regulatory aspects all participants to better approach landslip
of landslip risk. This research found that risk assessment and mitigation was
40% of the landslip claims analysed proposed. The report stated the need
involved slopes that had been modified for a collective approach involving EQC,
by engineering works. It also identified councils, knowledge providers, professional
some deficiencies in both professional associations and consultants.
practice and local government regulatory
• Concurrently with the CAENZ 2007 study,
control of the building consent process.
GNS Science released its Guidelines for
The study offered a possible process for
Assessing Planning Policy, and Consent
the systematic administration of building
Requirements for Landslide Prone Land
approvals.
(Saunders & Glassey, 2007), commonly

referred to as Landslide Guidelines. The and significant challenge. This complexity is
Landslide Guidelines are primarily targeted compounded by the diverse use of statutory
at assisting planners in determining if and non-statutory planning tools; such as
existing planning documents appropriately structure plans, master plans, and growth
incorporate landslide and slope stability strategies, as well as elements of the building
hazards.
consenting process and engineering practice
The Landslide Guidelines and Managing notes that the various stakeholders draw upon.
Landslip Risk: Improving Practice (CAENZ,
This study attempts to map and quantify these
2007) are complementary; both defining
considerations.
elements of good practice. They do this
through frameworks, offering examples and Understanding what is taking place now
describing the characteristics of slope stability provides an opportunity to identify existing
considerations in land use. strengths and work towards addressing
weaknesses as part of achieving better
In addition to these studies, several other
practice. Consequently the study sought
documents have been influential in shaping
to establish a methodology that facilitates
current land use planning and related practices
benchmarking of current practice for
within New Zealand;
comparison against recommended practice.
• The Australian Geomechanics Society
(AGS, 2007a) give specific guidance on No single organisation or discipline owns
risk zoning and land use planning. They slope stability risk. In addition to the range
have also produced a Practice Note of documents already outlined, the different
Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management organisations and professions have different
(AGS, 2007b) to address slope stability roles and draw upon different information in
for proposed developments in Australia; order to manage different aspects of slope
acknowledging that almost all local stability risk:
government areas (LGAs) are susceptible
to some form of landslide hazard. • Territorial Authority (TA) District plans
These documents provide guidance for document strategies for addressing the risk
risk assessment and management to of slope stability within a wider context of
practitioners, and guidance about the local authority goals.
interpretation of reports to government
• CDEM Groups, the regional consortia
officers.
of TA’s, maintain GDEM Group Plans in
• The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has consideration of regional risk exposure.
provided guidelines on natural hazard risk
• Consenting and planning departments
management, including landslips (Qual-
within TA’s manage the records relating to
ity Planning, 2006). This resource gives
land use and development and are charged
background information on a risk-based
with both compliance and implementation
approach to hazard management, and pro-
of managed growth strategies.
vides an overview of the RMA tools that are
available for managing natural hazards • EQC has a historical record of landslip
occurrences and contributing factors.
• Geotechnical and engineering consultancies
1.2 Understanding the often have their own records of geological
problem features and slope stability vulnerabilities.
What these documents do not provide is a • Crown Research Institutes hold considerable
perspective of how considerations relative to slope stability data from across New
slope stability are actually being incorporated Zealand in both electronic and paper
into land use planning decisions. records.
Understanding the different considerations • Agencies such as Ministry for the

that councils, certifiers, owners and others Environment, Department of Building and
Housing and the Ministry for Civil Defence
take into account in planning and developing
and Emergency Management also hold
policy for slope stability, presents a complex
specialist knowledge.

Each of these organisations and their resources use of landslip vulnerable land might be
contribute to the management of land use improved;
and slope stability, however, each one offers a
• Identify barriers to good practice through
perspective on only part of the overall picture.
participant feedback;
To be effective, the approaches that individual
organisations adopt need to be complementary. • Offer appropriate solutions to reducing
In other words, what is needed is a systemic those barriers in order to reduce landslip
risk exposure;
approach to characterise and distinguish
the variations in approaches often taken by • Assess anecdotal claims about current
different organisations and disciplines. practice and the uptake of science into
practice.
To better define the problem, and for the
The study specifically sought to examine the
purposes of this project, a study team that
roles of the following factors in affecting the
represented the diversity across the various
quality of decisions for the use of landslip
organisations and disciplines concerned was
prone land:
brought together to assist in the analysis.
The project itself focused on two territorial • Perception of tolerable risk;
authorities that were actively seeking to
• Influences on decision making, including
address slope stability as part of their land use
liability;
planning approach.
• Access to and use of technical information
The question asked was - to what extent and resources;
and effect slope stability considerations were
• The impact of technical information and
influencing land use planning within these two
resources have on improving practice;
Authorities? By understanding these influences,
and testing them against the recommendations • Council capacity and capability to address
contained within the Integrated Risk slope stability through planning and
consenting;
Management Framework (Appendix 1), it was
hoped that the study would lay the foundation • Internal council processes that support
for further advance of land use practice decisions on land use;
nationally. • Awareness of, and compliance with,
legislation and council policies;
1.3 Study Objectives • Knowledge sharing and interactions.
In seeking to present practical ways to improve The two areas adopted for case studies were
planning for the management and use of land the Far North District Council and Hutt City.
subject to slope stability, the study therefore The case studies were developed in a way
sought to: that would allow the work undertaken to be
extended to include a larger number of local
• Measure existing effectiveness of landslip authorities in the future, if deemed desirable.
risk reduction through land use planning,
The long term objective would be to produce a
• Identify barriers to good practice, and systematic national assessment of:
• Identify examples where appropriate • Current capability with regard to policy and
solutions to reducing those barriers have practice in land use planning for landslips;
been implemented to reduce risk exposure.
• Sharing of opportunities and knowledge to
In particular, the intent of this study was to: improved practice.
• Determine practitioners’ views on the use
Where appropriate, the Landslide Guidelines
and effectiveness of existing landslip risk
were used as a reference in determining
policy and practice;
the extent to which land use planning and
• Present recommendations for practical ways consenting documentation met with good
by which planning for the management and practice expectations.

2. METHODOLOGy
2.1 Approach as well as the breadth of resources that these

disciplines draw upon in determining slope
The approach taken in this study was both
stability risks for land use planning.
collaborative and inclusive. Rather than
conducting an external analysis of practice, The project team included local and central
the various stakeholder disciplines were government representation, and spanned:
represented on the study team in order to
draw upon the perspectives and knowledge • Planners
of the different professions. This also assisted • Engineers
in identifying the extent of cross discipline
• Researchers
interaction and communication that takes place
during land use planning. • Other specialist advisors
Areas of particular interest were identified

It was decided that although slope stability
based on the geographic density of EQC claims
is often characterised differently for different
within each case study area. Areas with a
geographic locations that two quite contrasting
high claim density were selected for analysis
local authority areas selected would provide
(see Figure 2 for an example of claim density.
a valid perspective on the range of slope
In this study the red and orange areas were
stability considerations that might be
selected). From the identified areas a selection
considered nationally. The two case study
of consent files were reviewed and assessed
areas also represented contrasting populations;
against expected slope stability considerations
one council being urban and the other
previously selected.
predominantly rural.
The historic data from the two councils enabled
Representation on the project team was chosen
a review of the type and level of information
so as to provide a wide range of knowledge
used in making decisions. These data included
of both practice across the different disciplines
Figure 2: Geographic density of EQC claims were used to define case study areas for analysis (Red represents
areas of greatest claim density)

CDEM Group plans, district plans, maps, Workshop participants were asked to provide
relevant EQC landslip claims (note; numbers feedback on how land use in the presence of
and location, not the claims themselves due landslip risks could improve, what they believe
to private information), resource consents, and could change in the near future and what
geotechnical consultancy reports. they saw as barriers to implementing their
recommendations.
The project captured the preferences of
practitioners; documenting the use of The surveys and workshops involved a range
references and resources as well as the of professionals that work within each of the
relationships between professions. Additionally, respective case study areas. Data obtained
it also identified whether on not slope stability was analysed based on both location and
was specifically addressed within the council professional discipline in order to seek
planning documents. correlations. This was then used to ascertain
the profile of resource use and relative
The Landslide Guidelines and the Integrated
contribution of different influences in arriving
Risk Management Framework were used to
at a land use decision.
inform the review of the historic data.
The study also assessed the importance of the

following attributes in affecting the quality of 2.2 Case Studies
decisions for the use of landslip prone land: The two councils that agreed to be case
studies were the Far North District Council and
• Perception of acceptable risk
Hutt City Council. Both have areas that are
• The influence of liability exposure subject to substantial slope failure and both
• Access to and use of existing technical have implemented different techniques to try
information and address their slope stability risk.
• Council capacity and capability Far North District is the northern most district
• Internal council processes in support of of New Zealand and is frequently subject to
land use weather events resulting in both saturated
soils and considerable storm water run off,
• Awareness of and compliance with legisla-
which contribute to landslips. As a result it
tion and council policies.
has experienced a large proportion of New
Questionnaires, along with supporting material, Zealand’s landslip events. Far North District
were provided to land use planners, building Council participated in this project as an
certifiers, geotechnical specialists, civil defence opportunity to enhance its ability to address
officers and others identified within the pilot slope stability risk through improved land use
study areas in advance of two workshops planning and consenting approaches.
that were held to address the various study
objectives. Hutt City is characterised by the Hutt River and
the Wellington Fault. It has coastal cliffs and
Supporting material included the Project steep hillsides. Both earthquakes and weather
Overview and the Landslide Guidelines. events contribute to Hutt City’s slope stability
Participants were asked to complete the risk. Several high profile slips have occurred
questionnaires in advance of the workshop. in recent years and Hutt City Council has been
A 78% return rate was obtained for the very active in educating residents on ways to
questionnaire, providing quantifiable data for minimise their risk exposure.
analysis of resource and practice familiarity,
usage and barriers to use. In conjunction with The respective councils have different slope
the two workshops, questionnaire surveys stability risk profiles. Their underlying geology
provided insight into the knowledge of is different, as are their weather patterns and
resources, actual practice and interactions that population profiles. Together they represent the
take place between professions. diversity of those areas in New Zealand that
are subject to slope stability vulnerabilities.

2.3 Integrating the historical data, to assess the degree to which
such factors were taken into account.
Outcomes
Application of Risk Management Standard,
In consultation with the two councils, the study
AS/NZS 4360:2004 (Standards Australia &
team compiled the survey findings and the
Standards New Zealand, 2004) in the land
analysis of historical data, thereby identifying
use planning process and evidence of the
key factors including; the preferences of
implementation of innovative initiatives and
practitioners, the use of references and
their impact was also considered as part of the
resources, as well as the relationships between
above survey analysis.
professions.
The approach taken proved to be a useful
The surveys were analysed for discipline and
way to identify mechanisms that encourage
location based variations. The factors identified
the uptake of good practice by individuals
as influencing current practice within the case
and organisations engaged in landslip risk
study areas were then compared against the
management.

3. RESEARCH FINDINGS
3.1 Overview of the case Overall the Hutt City district plan address land
stability well, with specific issue, objective,
studies policy and standards statements. Suggestions
Both councils’ policies, plans and records, were made on some minor amendments in the
and those of the associated CDEM Groups, future, in order to make them more robust.
demonstrate opportunities for greater
consideration of landslip risk. The Hill Residential Activity Area (Chapter 4D
of the City of Lower Hutt District Plan) com-
The documents reviewed included samples of prises most of the urban areas in the eastern
consent files, and policy documents (district and western hills of the Hutt Valley, including
plans and CDEM Group plans). Supporting those between Point Howard and Eastbourne.
tools such as district maps and consenting Applying the Landslide Guidelines suggests
checklists were also considered. that policy related to this area could be more
prescriptive regarding land stability issues.
The review of consenting files proved more
difficult than expected. Documentation, Within the Wellington CDEM Group Plan (Wel-
particularly relating to older properties, were lington Region Emergency Management Group,
either absent, or difficult to assess due to the 2005), landslides are ranked 8th (medium risk)
substantial changes in council practices and out of 24 hazards in the Wellington region.
legislation that have taken place since the time
at which the consent was issued. Fifty-eight consent files from Hutt City Council
were considered. Of these, twenty-one were
Additionally, a large number of Far North suitable for assessment. Many of the files
District Council files were unable to be contained building consent applications only.
assessed, because emergency works had been Two types of consents were supplied – those
carried out without requiring consents. where an event had not occurred at the time of
application; others post-event, where remedial
The policy documents and consent records
works were required because of slips.
from the two case study councils contrasted
markedly. However, for both councils, review Four characteristics were apparent in the review
of available consent files did not show of these files:
any significant evidence of geotechnical
assessments routinely being undertaken. • An internal policy change within the
consent processing team at the Council
resulted in significant changes to how
Hutt City Council
consent decisions were formatted.
The City of Lower Hutt District Plan (City of The change resulted in the officers
Lower Hutt, 2008, 2003a, 2003b) is fully reporting becoming considerably more
operative; the substantive part of the Plan comprehensive than prior to that change.
became operative from 24 June 2003, with Use of standard condition wording also
remaining parts operative on 18 March 2004. became apparent. This change in policy
The implication of this is that only five years of resulted in a more rigorous written planning
consents have been issued under the operative assessment. This presents substantial
benefit by enabling easier monitoring of
plan.
policies in the future.
The review of the Hutt City district plan • Many consent conditions referred to
provisions addressing land stability for urban a suitably qualified engineer; sound
residential development found good use engineering practices; and poor
of relevant information from the Landslide ground conditions. These three terms
Guidelines. General comments on the policies require qualification in order to ensure
adopted were also included. assessments are of an appropriate
standard.

• Consent planners at Hutt City Council have stability is the lowest rated hazard within the
a checklist/sheet to use for applications. ‘moderate priority’ in the CDEM Group Plan.
This sheet specifically includes, amongst
other issues, requirement for assessing One structure plan has been completed
natural hazards, with a peer review within the Far North District. It is for the
required. Kerikeri Waipapa area (Beca Group & Kent
• A few consents showed evidence of poor Consulting, 2007). The plan includes flooding
application. Examples of these indicated as a constraint, and subsequently as a ‘no go’
inadequate mitigation measures, short- area. Climate change is the only other hazard
term remediation, decisions based on addressed within the plan.
inadequate information and repeated
failures occurring. We comment that there is opportunity for any
future structure plans to include land stability
Far North District Council as a constraint. This could be achieved by
including slope stability/susceptibility as a
The Proposed District Plan for the Far North
constraint with additional assessment criteria.
District Council was publicly notified in April
2000, with decisions on submissions released Of the twenty-two Far North District Council
on 10 July 2003. Council then released consent files considered, only two met
the “Revised Proposed District Plan” which the assessment requirements of the study.
incorporated amendments made as a result of Consequently the sample size was insufficient
those decisions. On 27 September 2007, the for analysis. Upon investigation it became
Far North District Council resolved to declare apparent that a contributing factor to the
the Far North District Plan operative in part files not meeting the assessment criteria was
pursuant to clause 17(2) of the First Schedule because substantial remedial works following
of the RMA from 12 October 2007 (Far North the March 2007, July 2007 and February
District Council, 2008). The “Partly Operative” 2008 events had taken place under Section
version of the Far North District Plan, 124 of the Building Act as emergency work,
incorporates all RMA clause 16 amendments which does require retrospective consenting.
approved by Council and all amendments Consequently these properties did not require
made to the Plan as a result of variations retrospective resource or building consents.
and Environment Court consent orders and This hampered further efforts to re-sample Far
directions (up to 27 September 2007). The North District files.
implication of this is there are less than two
years of consents that have been issued under
the partly operative plan.
3.2 Survey Results
Survey participants comprised a variety of
Within the Northland CDEM Group Plan disciplines, including planning, building
(Northland Region Emergency Management certification, regional and district councils,
Group, 2004), it is acknowledged that EQC, CDEM, and geotechnical consultancies.
Northland has complex geology with a wide Questions related to their perceptions and
a range of soft rocks. These soft rocks are experience of landslip risk and land use as well
susceptible to deep-seated movement on even as their knowledge of and use of resources.
very gentle slopes. They can be a threat to
life and property, with one fatality in Dargaville Questions were based on the following subject
in 1998 and significant damage to property categories:
occurring on an annual basis. • Use of and familiarity of resources in
determining risk
However, while the CDEM Group Plan
acknowledges there is a risk to people and • Perceptions of landslip occurrence
property from land instability, this hazard is • Perceptions of policy (local, regional and
ranked 19th out of the 23 hazards listed for the national);
Northland region. With a SMG (seriousness,
• Risk monitoring;
manageability and growth) score of 3.0, land

Resources and References of Greatest use in Consideration of Landslip Risks
20
Respondents Using Resources
16
12
0
In-house Records
& Software
Guidance
Documents
Public Domain
Aerial Imagery
Maps
Institutional
Engineer Reports
Acts
Observation
Knowledge
Figure : Use of resources in support of decision making by professionals engaged in land use within the Far
North District and Hutt City Council areas
Familiarity with resources workshop questionnaire (80%), and of those

Collectively, responses regarding the use and that had, most had not used it.
familiarity with resources from all respondents Of those that had seen the Landslide
suggested that there is considerable subjective Guidelines but did not use them, reasons
input in the consideration of landslip risk. varied; with the majority having not had them
A variety of maps, aerial imagery and long enough to have used them or had not
observation comprised the most frequently processed a consent since reading that they
named resources used by participants (Figure considered relevant. Other feedback included;
3). In contrast documents such as Acts, • “the advice is too general and focussed
regulations and guidelines featured much lower too far towards “avoid” landslip rather
than might have been anticipated. than looking for appropriate solutions to
manage (by engineering) the risk”,
Of the resources that participants did have
access to, FNDC participants showed a • “we prefer to rely on site specific advice of
qualified persons”.
strong preference towards the use of aerial
photography and satellite imagery and to a It was notable that some resources were
lesser extent, local inventories and hazard known by participants, but they did not have
registers. Hutt City participants also showed a access to all of them (Figure 4); primarily
bias towards aerial photography and satellite databases and maps.
imagery but had similar familiarity with
inventories and maps. Perceptions of landslip occurrence
Planners (consent & policy) and engineers Consistently across both case study areas,
(civil, geotechnical & engineering geologists) participants indicated a view that these regions
showed a greater familiarity with aerial experienced more frequent and more severe
photography and satellite imagery over other landslips than other parts of the country.
resources. The importance of land use on susceptibility
to landslips was considered a significant
The majority of participants had not seen the contributing factor.
Landslide Guidelines prior to completing the

Familiarity with Resources (by percent)
90
72
Respondents Familiar with Resources
54
36
18
-18
-36
-54
-72
Geological Maps
NZ Landslide Database
Land Use Cap Maps
Local Inv. & Haz. Regs
Aerial Photos
Field Maps
Other Maps
GNS Guidelines
AGSLRM Guidelines
Use frequently
Use occasionally
Have access to, but don’t use
Know of, but don’t have access to
Am unfamiliar with
Figure : Familiarity with available resources that support slope stability consideration of land use indicates a
preference for visual resources
Factors Contributing to Landslips Locally (by percent)
80
60
40
20
0
-20
Major contribution
-40
Moderate contribution
-60 Minor contribution
-80 Did not contribute
Known risk not mitigated
New development increasing risk
Climate change
Seismic activity
Unusual meteorological event
Removal of vegetation
Normall meteorological event
Changes to use of surrounding land
Lack of geotechnical information
Lack of consideration of of geotechnical information
Council consent process
Communication within the council
Figure : Unusual meteorological events were viewed by participants as having the greatest contribution
to landslip occurrence with new development, removal of vegetation and normal meteorological
events also providing significant contribution

Future development of land was thus consid- believe could change in the near future and
ered to warrant greater attention than existing what they see as barriers to implementing their
land use or current land development. recommendations. The questions posed and the
three most common responses, in order from
Both councils indicated that urban and coastal
most frequent to least frequent, are as follows;
areas experienced a greater frequency of
landslips than other areas, (with coastal areas Q: Greatest opportunity for improving the
considered to be the most frequently affected). effectiveness of landslip management in New
Unusual meteorological events were considered Zealand?
the highest contributor to landslips overall and
across all professions (Figure 5). • Investing in local authority capacity,
education and skills;
However, Hutt City based participants also
• Educate the public sector on the costs of
indicated that new development increasing
landslip risk realisation and the value of
landslip risk is a significant contributing factor.
specialist reports;
Perceptions of policy • Increased information sharing across

professions;
Participant opinions of Local, Regional and
National policy regarding landslip risk were Q2: What participants would change regarding
consistent although not all participants chose landslips and land use practice?
to comment on the policy section of the
questionnaire. Of those that did, there was • Prevent development/ provide more
prescriptive controls in vulnerable areas;
notable dissatisfaction with the adequacy of
policy consideration of landslip risk. Planners • Improved stormwater management;
overwhelmingly described policy as less than • Consolidation of information into a central
adequate at the local level. repository;
Enhanced hazard information sharing was Q: Current opportunities for improving
cited as providing the greatest opportunity landslips land use practice?
to improve policy development; primarily
through improved presentation and quantity of • Education;
information available (as geographical layers) • Plan change;
for communicating with decision makers.
• Councils need to require greater rigour
Professional standards criteria was also before signing off building consents;
raised as a means for effecting improved
Q: Current barriers to improving landslips land
implementation of policy and practice.
use practice?
Participants considered that the adoption
of such standards would enhance policy • Cost/Economics;
development at local and regional level.
• Reluctance to share information;
Risk Monitoring • Concern over liability;

Of the planners that participated in the
Communication
questionnaire the majority rely on the use of a
checklist as their preferred risk-monitoring tool. Across all participants there was a strong
opinion that local authorities (and others)
The most frequently suggested opportunity do not interact effectively regarding landslip
for enhancing the monitoring of landslip risk considerations. The majority reported that
was greater information sharing and access to communication between disciplines occurred
information held by developers, consultants irregularly. It would be worth exploring the
(planning and geotechnical), EQC and councils. value of communication and preferred means
of communication to a greater extent in any
Land use practice subsequent work.
Participants were asked to provide feedback
on how land use management in the presence As previously described, workshops were
of landslip risk could improve, what they conducted in the two case study areas. During

the workshops participants mapped out land In addition to the structured investigations
use processes and attributed values to the that took place within the case study areas
different resources and influences that impact the study team was able to contribute further
slope stability based decision making by the observations based on previous experience
various professions engaged in each step and knowledge. This provided both insight
of the process. Participants were grouped and context to the research findings. It also
according to their professional discipline in raised awareness of resources that different
order to complete this activity. disciplines rely on in undertaking their role in
advising or implementing the planning process.
Following the workshop the results were
compiled and a series of three flow charts One initiative that came out of these
(Figures 6, 7 and 8 - see following pages) were interactions was to consider the relevance
developed in order to illustrate the land use and opportunity to adapt the Practice Note
process. Figure 6 illustrates the process that Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management
takes place from land being first seen by the (AGS, 2007b) to New Zealand. This was unable
purchaser, until resource consent is issued. to be completed as a part of this project but is
Figure 7 illustrates the building consent process being investigated.
and Figure 8 shows the process that takes
Discussion of suggestions arising from
place following a landslip.
the workshops and practice by different
In each figure, charted steps connected by councils also led to an appreciation of the
arrows describe the process flow. Different role that Producer Statements and registers
professions lead the decision-making process of Producer Statement authors can play in
for different steps. The steps are referenced to reducing the workload associated with consent
those professions that have the most significant considerations.
role in determining the outcome of that step
Producer Statements are issued by qualified
(e.g. developer, engineer, etc.).
professionals, such as Chartered Professional
In determining the outcome of each step Engineers, and provide Building Consent
a range of resources are used and various Authorities with reasonable grounds to issue
influences impact on the decisions that are building consents, without having to duplicate
made. The actual relative strengths of the construction checking. Some councils maintain
influences that come into effect and the degree registers of individuals from whom they accept
to which resources are drawn upon are listed at Producer Statements.
the base of the chart and indicated by colour.
The methodology of this study enabled
The relative values range from 1-5 with 1 being
multidisciplinary perceptions of current practice
the most significant and 5 being the least
to be captured. This approach has the potential
significant.
to measure the effectiveness of progressive
It was generally acknowledged within the work- actions that are taken to improve land use
shops that the ranking attributed to resources management. Repeating the workshops and
and influences in practice is not necessarily as surveys over time could provide benchmarking
it should be in theory. For example ‘common to measure any change in influences and
sense’ and ‘anticipate end user’ were ranked resource use as efforts are made to advance
low in terms of actual influence but were the consideration of slope stability in land use
acknowledged that they should be higher. The planning.
attribution of values based on actual practice
For Hutt City and Far North District Councils,
means that in the future a comparison can be
undertaking the workshops and surveys, in
conducted to determine how usage of resources
addition to reviewing past consenting and
and influences change.
planning decisions, provided a snapshot of
It should be acknowledged that although the current practice. These Councils can revisit
values given are representative of workshop the surveys in the future, as a means of
participants and the project team’s experience, gauging the progress they have made towards
there may be localised variations in different addressing the land use management needs
parts of the country. that they have identified.

Council
Sign-off
Figure : Process Flow Diagram for Subdivision Consenting

Figure : Process Flow Diagram for Building Consenting

Figure : Process Flow Diagram for Landuse Approval after major event

4. LESSONS FROM THE STUDy
Both the Landslide Guidelines and the use practice and in expressing data (often
Integrated Risk Management Framework through the use of GIS) when communicating
advocate collaborative approaches to the context of hazard considerations, such
addressing slope stability in land use planning. as landslips, between stakeholders including
This study identified ways that facilitate officials and owners who may not have a
greater collaboration. In particular the study technical background.
highlighted three areas where effort could
be focused in order to produce greater Data sharing
collaboration: The study identified that considerable quanti-
• Sharing of information, ties of data are held and managed by individu-
al organisations. The associated maintenance,
• Raising the profile of slope stability risk, and
in terms of time and resources, is substantial.
• Extending accountability.
Additionally, holding data internally can lead
to multiple organisations maintaining duplicate
4.1 Sharing of information data.
Two main barriers to the use of existing This can lead to under-utilisation of data and
knowledge were identified. The first was that rapid dating. Awareness of either the presence
for information to be readily adopted it needs of existing data sources or means by which
to be presented in an appropriate format. For they can be accessed may be lacking, and
example distribution of large documents to updating of data may not be consistent across
councils did not receive as great attention as organisations.
the provision of checklists or visual references.
The diversity of experience of those that took
The second barrier was a limited awareness part in the workshop proved useful as a means
of the range and volume of information of raising awareness of these issues. The desir-
that is held on slope stability by different ability of sharing existing tools and resources
organisations. This became apparent through held within a particular area and elsewhere
workshop interactions where individuals was indicated, and initial discussions on the
spoke of the resources that they drew upon value of consolidated data repositories were
in considering slope stability. In several also initiated.
instances other participants were unaware of
Specifically, the following data sources were
the existence of these information sources or
identified which, if shared or made more
means by which to access them.
readily accessible, would improve the quality
Presenting information of decisions and may in some cases provide
opportunities to distribute the burden of data
Efforts are required to encourage researchers to
maintenance:
present information and develop tools with a
strong spatial component. Information provided • Composite EQC data (see Appendix 4);
in this form can be integrated more readily into • GNS geological maps;
land use practice than that provided by other • District and Region wide database reports
means. indicating where and what kind of
information is held;
The survey and workshop findings indicated
that those engaged in land use related • Consolidated geographic information.
disciplines are most comfortable employing The value of data sharing could be further
visual and spatial concepts. This needs to be extended to encourage councils to contribute
reflected in the presentation of new tools and file data to centralised repositories such as
information intended to enhance consideration mapping datasets held by GNS Science. Open-
of slope stability. The use of visual tools access would need to be secured to make this
assists in both the implementation of land attractive.

Similar workshops would likely prove They have done this through distribution of
useful to other local authorities as a means brochures (Appendix 3) and publicising the
of determining the extent and sources impacts that landslips have had in their area.
of information that can contribute to
understanding slope stability risk in their area. Regular distribution of educational brochures
This has the potential to lead to more effective assists to raise awareness of the risks and
use and management of available data. mitigating actions that can be taken by new
and existing residents of vulnerable land.
Raising the profile of landslips that have

4.2 Raising awareness of occurred is also a public education tool.
slope stability as an issue
Landslip history combined with geotechnical
Raising the public profile of landslip risk is
and geomorphologic mapping enables the
important. Increasing the public appreciation
assessment of slope stability. Not all councils
of slope stability will do much to foster
record landslip risk on their hazard maps and
responsible land management by owners, e.g.
therefore Land Information Memorandums do
considered removal of vegetation.
not necessarily reflect the landslip risk profile
Two specific mechanisms identified through the of a property. Shared hazard databases and
case study work were: mapping resources, as suggested in workshops
and surveys, would provide greater consistency
• Public education on how homeowners can
and promote the dissemination of slope
modify their risk exposure;
stability data into the public domain.
• Greater emphasis on identifying potential
landslip areas on Hazard Maps and Land Profession and sector based
Information Memorandums (LIM’s).
professional development.
Ways to raise practice standards through From the many discussions and shared
learning from peers and across disciplines were experience that occurred during the course
also raised. of the study, it became obvious that many
councils have developed good practices, which
Public education on slope stability could be emulated by others. The examples
Hutt City Council has been actively informing given in the study surveys and examples from
owners on managing their slope stability risk. the Landslide Guidelines can help inform
Figure 9: The consequences of ill-considered land use provide an opportunity to raise

awareness of slope stability risk (photo courtesy of Hutt City Council)

councils (and practice areas within councils) 4.3 Extending
of successful approaches taken by their peers.
This was reinforced by the excellent interaction
accountability
seen between the different disciplines that Greater emphasis on slope stability through
participated in the workshops. Such interaction more explicit consideration within council
helps develop best practice policies and consenting requirements has the
potential to reduce landslip risk. Strengthening
Councils are encouraged to take note of the existing mechanisms should be combined with
Landslide Guidelines and the Integrated Risk improved practice through training and more
Management Framework for assessing consents rigorous certification of work. It is believed that
for both urban and other usage situations. this would have a positive effect in transferring
Doing so would provide greater consistency in greater accountability to those involved in the
decisions through the adoption of a risk-based consent process.
approach and the quantification of acceptable
risk exposure consistent with the accepted risk Existing mechanisms and
management practice. (AS/NZS 4360:20041, opportunities to extend accountability
Standards Australia and Standards New
Council’s play the main role in the process of
Zealand, 2004).
ensuring that appropriate decisions on land use
Development and adoption of an are made; yet several councils typically do not
accompanying Engineering Practice Guide have in-house expertise for assessing landslip
would complement this approach, providing risk. In order to assess a developer or land
greater certainty for developers and owners proposal, the council often commissions
landowners. This could be undertaken by peer reviews of other expert analysis, resulting
adapting the Practice Note Guidelines for in extra costs and delays to the developer.
Landslide Risk Management (AGS, 2007b)
Reliance on external consultants does not
as a resource for New Zealand geotechnical
transfer liability from councils. Reports, peer
specialists.
reviews, engineering assessments and solutions
Further benefit could be obtained by examining may be inadequate to allow councils to
the various examples of good practice cited determine their risk exposure. Different councils
by practitioners through the workshops. More have taken different approaches to address this.
work is yet needed to determine how well
One approach based on workshop and project
these cited practices performed in reducing
team discussions, is to make greater use of
landslip risks. Results could be disseminated
Producer Statements with backup insurance
through local government based forums.
requirements - and holding consultants to
As evidenced from the survey questionnaires, account when there is a failure.
communication between disciplines is
It was suggested that this process could be
often irregular, although the respective
useful for both the council and the developer
professional societies (e.g. IPENZ, NZ
(if developers’ advisers were able to self-certify
Planning Institute, Royal Society) attempt to
their work). This would presumably require
address this. Scheduled forums where the
consultants to be registered by a suitable body
different disciplines can be briefed on latest
as having the experience to undertake the type
developments and collectively discuss issues
of work and then to certify their work through a
and solutions would improve both awareness
Producer Statement.
of the implications of landslip risks and
improve existing practice. In instances where land management practices
have led to landslips, these have often been the
result of the policies at the time. To remedy such
instances two opportunities can be considered;
1 Soon to be replaced by the International Standard Risk a notified consent and a specialist assessment.
Management Principles and Guidelines (ISO/FDIS 31000)

A notified consent presents numerous aspects others, such as provisions of the Building
of the development to scrutiny, but in many Act, provides a basis for mandating minimum
cases all that is required is an assessment of expectations from a range of disciplines.
the landslip hazard. It is therefore more useful
Consistently establishing these expectations
to stipulate where specialist assessments
places councils in a better position to hold
are required, and then require more specific
to account those responsible for any specific
assessment criteria for these locations.
advice or technical assessments if or when
Understanding the accountability tools there is a failure, and to collectively influence
available through these mechanisms and the rigour on those disciplines involved.

5. CONCLUSIONS
In summary, this study has illustrated that the 5.1 Short term/immediate
greatest opportunities for improving practice
implementation opportunities
in land use planning is through ensuring
a collaborative and informed approach to • Regular multi-disciplinary discussions of
landslip issues and solutions established
balancing development pressure and slope
locally.
stability risk exposure.
• Formation of district or regional databases or
The recommendations arising from the study database directories for hazard information,
focus on three broad concepts; accessible to all, held and managed by local
• information sharing, councils.
• A greater focus by research on presenting
• improved methods of communication about
information with a strong spatial component.
slope stability risk,
• Greater use of Producer Statements with
• extended accountability. accountability requirements could be
These are set out below, with each presenting encouraged.
a number of discrete actions that can be taken. • Regular targeted circulation of public
Some require little cost and have potential to education material to households in
achieve rapid results, others require long-term vulnerable areas, describing how to reduce
commitment and centralised leadership. landslip risk through appropriate property
maintenance.
Few of the recommendations can be
• Greater consideration and promotion of the
implemented by a single organisation or Landslide Guidelines and the Integrated
profession. Virtually all require improved Risk Management Framework by councils
communication and greater collaboration to provide greater consistency in assessing
between disciplines and across organisations. consents and to demonstrate a reasonable
level of duty of care.
What this study has shown is that one of the
simplest, and likely most effective actions 5.2 Longer term
would be regular multidisciplinary discussions
implementation opportunities
of the land use issues encountered in the local
area. • A national benchmarking process to promote
improved practices.
Such discussions would enable all professions
• Improvement of future generations of council
to maintain a current knowledge of concerns plans to better reflect and recognize slope
and awareness of good practice, as well stability risks.
as promote new knowledge and particular
• A Landslip Engineering Practice Guide to be
concerns that might arise. developed for New Zealand.
While many of the recommendations require • Known landslip risk areas identified on
local action, national agencies could facilitate public hazard maps and also made available
more effective management of slope stability through LIMs.
risk. • Development of a comprehensive and freely
available national set of large-scale detailed
In conclusion, therefore, we commend the
map sheets consolidating existing landslip
following recommendations for further
information for urban areas.
consideration and possible uptake.
• The development of national standards to
better address landslip risk.

This study reports on research that identifies will require further collaboration and a
opportunities for improved landslip risk collective undertaking to address the various
management. issues raised during the course of this study.
The framework adopted advocates integrated The study, itself, has demonstrated a
management approaches and more specific willingness of all those involved to progress
assessment criteria. However, going forward such an initiative.

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHy
Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS), Hutt District Plan, 2004 incorporating

2007a. Guideline for landslide Plan Change 10 Notified 21 October
susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning 2008, http://www.huttcity.govt.
for land-use planning, Australian nz/publications-forms/District-Plan/
Geomechanics 42 (1). Accessed 2008.
Australian Geomechanics Society (ASG), City of Lower Hutt. Hutt City Council
2007b. Practice Note guidelines for Building and Planning Forms http://
landslide risk management. Australian www.huttcity.govt.nz/publications-
Geomechanics 42 (1). forms/Forms/Building-and-Planning-
Forms/ Accessed 2009
Beca Group & Kent Consulting, 2007.
Kerikeri Waipapa Structure Plan: Earthquake Commission, 2008. Annual
Managing growth and heritage. Far Report 2007-2008. Wellington.
North District Council, p61.
Far North District Council, 2008. Far North
Brown, I.R., 2005: A study of issues District Plan http://www.fndc.govt.
affecting the stability of land in Hutt nz/services/environmental-policy-and-
City. Report for Hutt City Council, Ian R forward-planning/the-far-north-district-
Brown Associates Ltd, IRBA Job 817. plan accessed 13 January 2009
CAENZ, 2004. Planning for Natural Hunt, R., 2007. Geologic Hazards: A Field
Hazard Risk in the Built Environment. Guide for Geotechnical Engineers. CRC
New Zealand Centre for Advanced Press.
Engineering. Christchurch.
Hutt City Council, 2008. District Plan
CAENZ, 2007. Managing Landslip Risk: Committee Hearings for Proposed
Improving Practice. New Zealand Centre Plan Change 10 – Amendments to
for Advanced Engineering. Christchurch. subdivision provisions. 28 August
2008.
CAENZ, 2009. CAENZ Comments 05
Land Use Planning for Natural International Society for Soil Mechanics
Hazards: Stewardship for the Future. and Geotechnical Engineering. Technical
New Zealand Centre for Advanced Committee on Risk Assessment and
Engineering. Christchurch. Management (ISSMGE TC32), 2004.
Glossary of Risk Assessment Terms
City of Lower Hutt 2003a. Hutt City Council – Version 1, July 2004.
District Maps http://www.huttcity.govt.
nz/publications-forms/District-Plan/Map- Kliche, C., 1999. Rock Slope Stability,
Appendices/ Accessed 2008 Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, Inc. (SME).
City of Lower Hutt, 2003b. Part 4: Section
32 evaluation http://www.huttcity. Lawrence, J.H, Depledge, D.R., Eyles,
govt.nz/Documents/district-plan/plan- R.J., Oakley, D.J., & M.J. Salinger,
changes/Part%204%20and%204A%20- 1978: Landslip and flooding hazards
%20Section%2032%20Evaluation.pdf. in Eastbourne Borough – A guide for
Accessed 17 December, 2008 planning. Water and Soil Division,
Ministry of Works and Development,
City of Lower Hutt, 2006. Managing the Wellington.
risk of landslides: a guide for people
on hillside properties. Development Northland Region Emergency Management
Services Group, Hutt City Council. Group, 2004. Northland Civil Defence
Emergency Management Group Plan.
City of Lower Hutt, 2008. City of Lower http://www.nrc.govt.nz/upload/1443/

Civil_Defence_Plan.pdf. Accessed 2009. Policy and consent Requirements for
Landslide Prone Land. GNS Science
Quality Planning, Structure Planning Miscellaneous Series 7, February 2007.
http://www.qualityplanning.org.
nz/plan-topics/structure-planning. Standards Australia and Standards New
php#definingstructure Accessed 9 Zealand, 2004. AS/NZS 4360:2004, Risk
October 2009. Management, Sydney and Wellington.
Quality Planning, The RMA Planning Tonkin & Taylor, 2008. EQC maps ‘CAENZ
Resource Natural Hazards Management Research – land use and landslips,
– Research Report http://www. Frequency of EQC landslip claims’.
qualityplanning.org.nz/qp-research/ Figures 1.B, 1.D, 1.H, 1.I, 1.M, rev. 1,
natural-hazards-aug06/html/ Accessed 9 November 2008
May 2009
Wellington Region Emergency Management
Riddolls & Grocott Ltd., 1999. Assessment Group, 2005: Wellington Region Civil
of Geotechnical and Development Defence Emergency Management Group
Factors involved in EQC landslip Plan. Wellington Regional Council.
Claims. Report for Earthquake
Commission. Legislation
Saunders, W., Forsyth, J., Johnston, Building Act 2004.
D.M., Becker, J., 2007. Strengthening
Civil Defence Emergency Management Act
linkages between land-use planning
2002.
and emergency management in New
Zealand. Emergency Management Earthquake Commission Act 1993.
Australia, 22(1): p36-43.
Privacy Act 1993.
Saunders, W and Glassey, P, 2007.
Guidelines for Assessing Planning Resource Management Act 1991.

APPENDICES
APPENDIx 1: Integrated Risk Management Framework................................................ 39

APPENDIx 2: Glossary of terms and acronyms ............................................................ 43
APPENDIx 3: Hutt City Council Brochure ...................................................................... 45
APPENDIx 4: Information held by the Earthquake Commission .................................. 47

APPENDIx 1: Integrated Risk Management
Framework
New Zealand uses an integrated system of offers a systematic approach to slope
organisations and policies to address natural stability risk management. The framework
hazard risks. The Integrated Risk Management presents a logical sequence of interrelated
Framework below is extracted from Managing steps beginning with understanding the risk
Landslip Risk: Improving Practice (CAENZ, through to ongoing assessment. It recognises
2007). If used in conjunction with the that natural hazard risks are not static. As
Australian/New Zealand Standard for Risk surrounding changes in land use occur the risk
Management (AS/NZS 4360:20041, Standards must be continually reviewed in order to be
Australia and Standards New Zealand, 2004) it effectively managed.
1. ANALYSIS - This step is required to inform Participants
Activity Desired Outcome Recommended Actions
Strategic There is a clear understanding of the Review occurrences for number, location,
Awareness causes of risks, their extent, and cause, costs, etc.
future projections, within which to Assess causes and trends (to determine
focus participation. importance of task).
Assess international practice for possible
contributions.
Advocacy Participants are aware of the critical Develop “map” of current roles and
Analysis points to participate in the responsibilities of all those involved, as
development and application of well as understanding their plans and
expertise and knowledge, and in the politics, and how to best interact with
design and management of the each.
regulatory regime utilised by
government.
Stakeholder Participants understand what Consult with stakeholders to determine

Analysis stakeholders presently contribute to what current activities exist, their
risk management and what role they effectiveness, concerns and future plans,
might be willing to accept in and how each may partner.
managing the framework.
Risk Participants appreciate the risks Prepare a risk map of the necessary
Assessment associated with participating to participation opportunities in the decision-
ensure the best possible decision- making for the built environment. This
making relating to the built means assessing the possible success of
environment of NZ. each intervention, any barriers, and
options for addressing these.
Then devise a plan to address using the
activities below (and others as required)
These activities will define the others below.
1 Soon to be replaced by the International Standard Risk

Management Principles and Guidelines (ISO/FDIS 31000)

2. RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT - This step is required to build relationships participants need to
play an effective role in managing risk.
Communications Professionals, their associations Ensure messages are identified, clarified,

(outward focussed and local authorities are aware of and delivered consistently in publications,
and 2.
related to the
RELATIONSHIP theMANAGEMENT
implications of poor risk
- This websites,
step is required to buildconferences,
relationshipsetc.
participants need to
development of management and
play an effective role in managing risk.the need for this Adopt a clear communications strategy for
the Framework) Framework. its engagement with stakeholders.
Communications Participants’ role,
Professionals, process
their and
associations Ensure messages are identified, clarified,
(outward focusseddesiredand outcomes are known
local authorities with of
are aware and delivered consistently in publications,
and related to therespect to this exercise.
the implications of poor risk websites, conferences, etc.
development of management and the need for this Adopt a clear communications strategy for
Networking (long
the Framework) ThisFramework.
Framework is managed Linkits
to engagement
other professional groups important
with stakeholders.
term co-ordination collectively by partners.
Participants’ role, process and to the success of this initiative (engineering,
on the desired outcomes are known with geotechnical, planning, etc.).
Framework) respect to this exercise. Link to key central and local government
management and technical processes.
Networking (long This Framework is managed Link to other professional groups important
term co-ordination collectively by partners. to the success of this initiative (engineering,
on the geotechnical, planning, etc.).
Framework) Link to key central and local government
management and technical processes.
3. ADVOCACY STRATEGIES - This step is important for getting the work done.
Legislative Legislation and national policies in Assess existing legislation for

Framework place create the opportunity for completeness.
good governance and best practice Identify and assess central government
decision making
3. ADVOCACY STRATEGIES - Thisatstep is important for roles
all levels. and
getting theresponsibilities
work done. to identify
Liabilities arising from decisions on strengths and gaps, and to develop any
Legislative risk Legislation
are known. and national policies in required solutions.
Assess existing legislation for
Framework place create the opportunity for Assess how liabilities are managed
completeness.
good governance and best practicewithin and across
Identify governments.
and assess central government
decision making at all levels. roles and responsibilities to identify
Data and Relevant dataarising
Liabilities and information is
from decisions onDatastrengths
and information
and gaps, is made
and toreadily
develop any
Information publicly available.
risk are known. available as required.
required solutions.
Other publicly funded data and Identify these
Assess sources,
how theare
liabilities value of their
managed
information important to risk contributions and all access
within and across governments.issues.
management is made readily Identify technologies, software and data
Data and Relevant data and information is protocols
available. that information
Data and are commonly, or should
is made readily
Information Suitable technologies
publicly available. are available be commonly
available asavailable.
required.
to expedite decisions.
Other publicly funded data and Identify these sources, the value of their
information important to risk contributions and all access issues.
Research Research requirements
management necessary
is made readily In consultation with practitioners,
Identify technologies, softwaretertiary
and data
to improve understanding
available. are education institutions, CRI’s
protocols that are commonly, and funding
or should
known and acted
Suitable upon. are availableagencies
technologies to develop
be commonly an agenda for
available.
to expedite decisions. research, set priorities and assist in
securing financing.
Research Research requirements necessaryIdentify areas where
In consultation funding
with can assist
practitioners, tertiary
to improve understanding are in the uptake ofinstitutions,
education science in CRI’s
decision-
and funding
known and acted upon. making.
agencies to develop an agenda for
Identify and support
research, pilot studies
set priorities on the
and assist in
application
securingoffinancing.
new approaches.
Identify areas where funding can assist
in the uptake of science in decision-
making.
Identify and support pilot studies on the
application of new approaches.

3. ADVOCACY STRATEGIES cont.
Methodologies, External professional fraternity has Review existing “tools” for adequacy and
Benchmarking, the appropriate “tools” to address where necessary set out strategy to fill
Standards, and risk management issues critical gaps where these are relevant (what
Guidelines Programme and project managers gaps, who can partner, what priority, etc)
are aware of risk and how best to Establish work plan, contributors, finances,
manage it. partners, etc to update/modify/create
related methodologies, benchmarked
processes and information, standards and
guidelines.
Manage development of work plan
Promote relevant “tools” through
workshops, conferences, etc.
Maintain vigil on adequacy and evolving
needs
Best practise is identified and promoted.
Monitoring of revised standards and
guidelines
Develop risk-based management
methodology to assist managers of
projects/programmes to improve decision
making on risk.
Regulatory Process Local Government planning, Identify critical areas that have to be
Improvement consents, compliance and policy prepared for any revised approach
processes allow for the successful (legislation, planning and policy, etc, human
applications of the risk behaviour, awareness, etc).
management advice. Develop change needs for each critical
area, and how this might be achieved.
Develop a plan to influence these critical
areas (this might include engaging central
government to change legislation or
department polices, some might be done
through awareness initiatives).
Education Tertiary Institutions have Identify Tertiary Institutions’ current

appropriate awareness and training engagement.
in their course work. Develop engagement strategy messages,
priorities, contacts, etc
Engage Tertiary Institutions’ to develop
content with assistance as required
Promote good uptake with appropriate
recognition (student awards, TI awards)
Professional Continuing professional Workshops

Development development initiatives endorse Conference support
risk mitigation training etc where Fellowships
applicable.
Accreditation Professional standards are Identify professional accreditation needs.

maintained.

4. EVALUATION AND REPORTING - Needed to complete the framework in giving management
continual assessments of the progress of the initiative.
Evaluation Participants’ management is Develop reporting process for

aware that its investment in loss Framework with outcomes, outputs,
reduction is effectively timelines, etc.
contributing to the improvement Identify appropriate methodology for
of decision on risk. “measuring the impact” of science
investments.
Reporting Partners to the Framework are Reporting schedule and process to be

aware of progress. developed.
Participants are aware that their Staff regularly report on progress made.
investment in the research This should incorporate input from
programme is generating the partners.
desired outcomes.

APPENDIx 2: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
AGS Australian Geomechanics Society
BOINZ Building Officials Institute of New Zealand
CAENZ The Centre for Advanced Engineering New Zealand
CDEM Civil Defence Emergency Management
DBH Department of Building and Housing
EQC The Earthquake Commission
Failure In this instance failure refers to the realization of a landslip or landslide
FNDC Far North District Council
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GNS Science The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, a Crown research institute (CRI).
Hazard A potentially damaging event occurring within a given area within a given time.
HCC Hutt City Council
ISSMGE The International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
Landslide The movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth (soil) down a slope (ISSMGE, 2004)
Landslip The Earthquake Commission Act 1993 defines natural landslip as “the movement (whether by
way of falling, sliding or flowing, or by a combination thereof ) of ground-forming materials
composed of natural rock, soil, artificial fill, or a combination of such materials, which before
movement, formed an integral part of the ground; but does not include the movement of
the ground due to below-ground subsidence, soil expansion, soil shrinkage, soil compaction,
or erosion
LGNZ Local Government New Zealand
LIM Land Information Memorandum
LINZ Land Information New Zealand
LTCCP Long Term Council Community Plan
MfE Ministry for the Environment
NRC Northland Regional Council
NZGS New Zealand Geological Society
RA Regional Authority
Risk The chance of something happening that will be an impact. A risk is often specified in terms
of an event or circumstance and the consequences that may flow from it (Standards Australia
and Standards new Zealand, 2004)
RMA The Resource Management Act 1991

Slippage Term used in the Building Act 2004. This has the same meaning as landslip under the
Earthquake Commission Act, but in the context of the land on the site moving offsite.
Slope failure The realisation of a landslip or landslide. Slope failures are the result of gravitational
forces acting on a mass which can creep slowly, fall freely, slide along some failure
surface, or flow as a slurry. (Hunt, 2007)
Slope stability The resistance of an inclined surface to failure by sliding or collapsing (Kliche, 1999)
Structure Plan Is a framework to guide the development or redevelopment of a particular area by

defining the future development and land use patterns, areas of open space, the layout
and nature of infrastructure (including transportation links), and other key features for
managing the effects of development. (Quality Planning Website)
Susceptibility Being prone to. In terms of landslides this refers to a quantitative or qualitative
assessment of the classification, volume (or area) and spatial distribution of landslides,
which exist or potentially may occur in an area (ISSMGE, 2004)
TA Territorial Authority
Vulnerability Exposure to damage, the potential degree of loss.
GWRC Greater Wellington Regional Council

APPENDIx 3: Hutt City Council Brochure
Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice
Side of 200 Hutt City Council fold out brochure.
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀
Page
Page
Side 2 of 200 Hutt City Council fold out brochure.
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀
฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀
Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ #(%#+,)34฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
APPENDIx 4: Information held by the
Earthquake Commission
Claims Information is Private However, EQC is able to release data in a form
Information that does not enable an individual property
owner from being identified. This is usually
Under the Privacy Act 1993, EQC is restricted
done by aggregating the data or displaying
from communicating personal information,
individuals’ claims on a small-scale map (at
that is, information about an identifiable
such resolution that individual properties can’t
individual. While there may be an argument
be identified).
that information about a property or claim
(not including the name of the claimant) is EQC can release information as follows:
not personal information, claim information
• Small-scale map data (these are also
will often enable the claimant to be
posted on EQC’s website after a significant
identified by searches of the land register
event – as shown below);
and could therefore broadly be described as
personal information. Given that the Privacy • Data aggregated by postcode or local
Commissioner typically takes a very broad view authority boundary;
of what constitutes “personal information”, • Specific property information if the
EQC starts from the presumption that claims requester has received the written
information is personal information of the permission of the property owner.
claimant.
Figure 0: Total loss summaries by territorial local authority (TLA) illustrate the significance of slope stability impacts
on land use in certain parts of New Zealand (image provided by EQC)

Mail: Private Bag 4800, University of Canterbury Campus, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
Street Address: 39 Creyke Road, Ilam, Christchurch, New Zealand
Phone: 03 364 2478 Fax: 03 364 2069 e-mail: info@caenz.com www.caenz.com

Slope Stability and Landuse Improving PL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Slope Stability and Landuse Improving PL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slope Stability and Landuse Improving PL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

new zealand centre for advanced engineering

Slope Stability & Landuse

Improving Planning Practice

A report commissioned by the New Zealand Earthquake

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 

Prepared by: Kristin Hoskin

Issued: September 2009

Address for Correspondence

Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Project Sponsor Ed Ladley

Riddolls Consultants Limited

Kristin Hoskin (Project Manager) Clive Manley Consulting Limited

Tonkin & Taylor Victoria University

Nick Rogers Prof Michael Crozier

Terminology used in this report

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 

3. Research Findings ......................................................................................................19

4. Lessons from the Study .............................................................................................29

References and Bibliography.........................................................................................35

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 9

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 

Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Understanding the different considerations • Agencies such as Ministry for the

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 

1.3 Study Objectives • Knowledge sharing and interactions.

Page  Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

2.1 Approach as well as the breadth of resources that these

Areas of particular interest were identified

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 

The study also assessed the importance of the

Page  Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 9

Page 20 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Familiarity with resources workshop questionnaire (80%), and of those

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 2

Land Use Cap Maps

Local Inv. & Haz. Regs

Factors Contributing to Landslips Locally (by percent)

New development increasing risk

Changes to use of surrounding land

Lack of geotechnical information

Lack of consideration of of geotechnical information

Council consent process

Communication within the council

Page 22 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Perceptions of policy • Increased information sharing across

Risk Monitoring • Concern over liability;

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 2

Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Figure : Process Flow Diagram for Subdivision Consenting

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 2

Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 2

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Page Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Page Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 9

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 2

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 2

Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Figure : Process Flow Diagram for Subdivision Consenting

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 2

Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 2

Page 0 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Page Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Page Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page 9

Page 0 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Page 2 Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page

Page Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice

Side of 200 Hutt City Council fold out brochure.

Side 2 of 200 Hutt City Council fold out brochure.

Slope Stability & Landuse: Improving Planning Practice Page