- Why is the area being reviewed so confined?
- Why is QLDC reviewing natural hazards in this area?
- What if I own property, live or work on land adjacent to/outside of the area being reviewed?
- What areas did BECA review?
- What about the redevelopment of the old Wakatipu High School site you’ve just signed off on?
- What do you mean by 'risk?
- Are these the only alluvial fans in the District?
- Does rockfall mean individual rocks or an avalanche?
- Does liquefaction take into consideration the old rubbish tip?
- What effects do trees have on likelihoods? Are they a hazard themselves?
- Are the trees in the catchments maintained?
- I believe QLDC diverted the Reavers creek in mid-1960s – have you considered the effects of this?
- What about insurers? What does this mean for my property value?
About this pre-consultation process
Why aren't you doing the recommendations first and then asking us?
Why not look at the infrastructure first, and improve it, and then look at planning?
Engineering or infrastructure can be used to help manage natural hazard risk. But this can come at significant cost and can be very difficult in some circumstances due to the nature of existing development. We also need to take into account higher order planning documents which give preference to risk management approaches that reduce the need for hard protection structures or similar engineering interventions.
What is done with the information you've gathered?
Feedback gathered from the pre-consultation process will help shape a picture of the role people see QLDC playing in managing natural hazard risk.
The risk matrix in particular will establish the community’s tolerance to natural hazard risk.
It does this by offering the community an opportunity to tell us what type of natural hazard consequence (impacts of a natural hazard event) and likelihood (chance of natural hazard events occurring) combinations fall into the following categories:
- Acceptable – Risk you are happy to live with knowing that it will receive limited or no planning intervention.
- Tolerable – Risk you are prepared to put up with and could recover from. Planning interventions will occur to manage activities and development to minimise risk as far as practicable.
- Intolerable – Risk you are not prepared to endure regardless. Planning interventions to manage this risk will be strong and may result in certain activities and developments being restricted or prohibited.
e.g. if the community tells us that natural hazard
events with high consequence and likelihood combinations are intolerable, then
QLDC may restrict or prohibit activities and development in areas where our geotechnical
information signals that natural hazard events have a higher chance of
About the area under review
Why is the area being reviewed so confined?
Why is QLDC reviewing natural hazards in this area?
What if I own property, live or work on land adjacent to/outside of the area being reviewed?
What areas did BECA review?
The BECA report carried out specific assessments to understand the nature of debris flow, rockfall, liquefaction and flooding within the areas subject to the plan review.
What about the redevelopment of the old Wakatipu High School site you’ve just signed off on?
The site of the previous Wakatipu High School is located outside of the area that is being assessed by this plan review process. The reason for this is that is not located on the surface of either the Brewery Creek or Reavers Lane alluvial fans. It is located between the two fan surfaces. Even though it hasn’t been assessed as part of this plan review, any future development on the old school site will need to consider the effects of natural hazard events.
How this fits in the wider District Plan review process
Is this the first step in a wider process? Will natural hazard reviews be district-wide?
This is the first community tolerance pre-consultation that QLDC has conducted and follows recent updates to national, regional and district level planning documents.
These changes direct QLDC to understand the community’s tolerance to natural hazard risk early in the plan making process and take this into account when developing recommendations for new planning regulations.
The Brewery Creek and Reavers Lane areas are not the only alluvial fans within our district - it is anticipated that other areas subject to natural hazard risk will go through a similar process.
How is this process different from other parts of the District Plan review?
About natural hazards and risk
What do you mean by 'risk?
Are these the only alluvial fans in the District?
Does rockfall mean individual rocks or an avalanche?
Rockfall refers to blocks of material which roll, fall or bounce down a slope individually to one another. Rocks can fall in a group but not as an entire mass of land falling at once.
Does liquefaction take into consideration the old rubbish tip?
The old rubbish tip is not located within the area of land that is subject to this plan review process.
What effects do trees have on likelihoods? Are they a hazard themselves?
Trees change from year to year so they have not be included in this modelling of natural hazards.
They can influence natural processes in various ways, for instance:
- trees can help stabilise soils and other material on the slopes of the catchments (limiting the movement of material towards people and property on the alluvial fan surfaces)
- tree trunks and other vegetation have the potential to form small dams that can fail and result in pulses of debris during significant rainfall events
Trees could result in fires and occasionally can fall but they do not present risks in the same way as debris flow, rockfall, liquefaction and flooding.
Are the trees in the catchments maintained?
The trees in the upper catchments are a mix of native mountain beech forest and wilding douglas fir.
The wilding douglas fir is managed by the Wakatipu Wilding Conifer Control Group.
There is currently no forestry work planned in the catchment areas.
QLDC planners working on this plan review have been and will
continue to be in regular contact with both the Infrastructure and the Parks
and Reserves department staff to get advice on these matters.
I believe QLDC diverted the Reavers creek in mid-1960s – have you considered the effects of this?
The existing situation at Reavers Creek has been taken into account by BECA in their report - this will include any diversion which has occurred.
What about insurers? What does this mean for my property value?
Natural hazards are something we live with. They come with the territory of living in many places across New Zealand and Queenstown is no different. They are a product of what makes our district such a special place to live, work and play – the alpine environment, our mountains, rivers and lakes which can be highly dynamic and changeable.
Natural hazards planning has received more and more attention since the Christchurch earthquakes and we are learning more about them all the time. It’s important to remember that these areas are known to have been associated with alluvial fans and natural hazards for quite some time. For example, debris flows occurred in this area in 1986 and 1999. The current plan review process has therefore enabled us to refine what we know about existing natural hazards in this area.
Changes to planning rules don’t necessarily result in changes to insurance premiums or property values.
About the sessions
I can’t go along to these sessions – what can I do?
Should my employees or tenants go along to the community consultation sessions?
How do I register to attend a Community Session?