Description: COAT-ARM Hastings District Council

 

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East, Hastings

Phone:  (06) 871 5000

Fax:  (06) 871 5100

WWW.hastingsdc.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

Open

 

A G E N D A

 

 

Council MEETING

 

 

 

Meeting Date:

Thursday, 28 June 2018

Time:

1.00pm

Venue:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

 

Council Members

Chair: Mayor Hazlehurst

Councillors Barber, Dixon, Harvey, Heaps, Kerr, Lawson, Lyons, Nixon, O’Keefe, Poulain, Redstone, Schollum, Travers and Watkins

 

Officer Responsible

Acting Chief Executive – Mr N Taylor

Council Secretary

Mrs  C Hunt (Extn 5634)

 


TRIM File No. CG-14-1-00827

 

 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

COUNCIL MEETING

 

Thursday, 28 June 2018

 

VENUE:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

1.00pm

 

A G E N D A

 

 

 

1.       Prayer

2.       Apologies & Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

3.       Seal Register

4.       Conflict of Interest

Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have.  This note is provided as a reminder to Members to scan the agenda and assess their own private interests and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be perceptions of conflict of interest. 

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting.  If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the General Counsel or the Democratic Support Manager (preferably before the meeting). 

It is noted that while Members can seek advice and discuss these matters, the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.


5.       Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes of the Council Meeting held 5 June 2018 and reconvened on 6 and 11 June 2018, including minutes while the public were excluded.

(Previously circulated)      

6.       Hastings Girls High School - Femmina Capella                 5

7.       Havelock North Booster Pump Station                              7

8.       Response to Petition Seeking an Exemption from Chlorination at Haumoana and Te Awanga                      37

9.       Tainui Track Development                                               45

10.     Review of Speed Limits Bylaw and Schedules                69

11.     Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy Assessment Panel report and Stage 4 Scope                                       73

12.     Omarunui LFG Generation Limited Partnership 2017/18 Annual Report                                                                  85

13.     Asset Management Plans                                                93

14.     Adoption of 2018-28 Long Term Plan and Development Contributions Policy                                                        97

15.     Flaxmere Park Reserve Management Plan Actions        135

16.     Hawke's Bay Airport Limited 2018/19 Statement of Intent                                                                              139

17.     Hawke's Bay Museums Trust 2018/19 Statement of Intent                                                                              147

18.     Local Government New Zealand 2018 Annual General Meeting - Remits                                                            155

19.     Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA)  Monthly Update                                                                            157

20.     Additional Business Items

21.     Extraordinary Business Items 

22.     Recommendation to Exclude the Public from Item 23                   163

23.     Hastings Railway Station

 

     


File Ref: 18/527

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                 Hastings Girls High School - Femmina Capella        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The Hastings Girls High School Femmina Capella are coming to the start of the Council meeting to sing.

 

1.2     Choral Director Chris Atkinson and the Femmina Capella from Hastings Girls High School took out the top award at the Big Sing East Coast competition held in May this year.

1.3     The competition, organised by the New Zealand Choral Foundation, had more than 800 students in total taking part.  Local choirs from Gisborne to Central Hawke’s Bay competed over two days on 29 and 30 of May 2018.

1.4     Hastings Girls High School won the overall award, winning NZCF East Coast Trophy for Femmina Cappella.

1.5     The Big Sing has been held annually for 30 years, with about 10,000 singers from around 150 schools and 260 choirs entering the regional festivals each year. The festival aims to enable schools to participate in and be exposed to high-quality choral music in a supportive and professional settings.

1.6     It also provides opportunities for New Zealand composers to have their works performed in public to a high standard, as well as increasing an understanding and appreciation of Māori music and work with tangata whenua.

 

2.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)       That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled “Hastings Girls High School Femmina Capella” dated 28/06/2018 be received.

 


File Ref: 18/554

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Water Services Manager

Brett Chapman

SUBJECT:                 Havelock North Booster Pump Station        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the preferred site for establishing the Havelock North Booster Pump Station.

1.2     This issue arises from the need to construct a booster pump station within Havelock North to ensure the efficient distribution of potable water to maintain adequate service to all consumers.

1.3     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4     The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to meet the current and future needs of the community through the provision of good quality local infrastructure that delivers a safe and high quality water service that is cost effective for households and businesses.

1.5     This report concludes by recommending that Council determines the preferred site for location of the booster pump station to enable construction to proceed as soon as possible.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     At a Council meeting on 26 April 2018, a report (File Ref: 18/170) was presented to Councillors which set out the basis of a site selection process for establishing a booster pump station in Havelock North.

2.2     This report followed on from a presentation by Diane Vesty, Barry Jones and Graeme Putt speaking to their petition which had been received at the 1 February Council meeting.

2.3     The report presented by officers detailed information on the technical reasons for the site selection and explained the community involvement and opposition to the original site that was considered at 25 Karanema Drive.

2.4     In response to community concerns, an alternative site at 15 Karanema Drive (the Fire Station site) was investigated and a detailed comparison was put forward outlining the relative merits and issues of each site.

2.5     The report also presented financial information based on preliminary estimates which determined that the pump station would cost approximately $1.175M more to construct at 15 Karanema Drive than at 25 Karanema Drive.

2.6     The largest proportion of the additional cost is due to land acquisition and easements needed at 15 Karanema Drive to secure a suitable site and protect pipelines and associated services.

2.7     At the time of that report, the preliminary cost estimate was based on an independent desktop valuation assessment and a technical review of the differences between the two sites.

2.8     The meeting was adjourned and moved into a Public Excluded Session to enable further valuation information to be considered.

2.9     The meeting then resumed in Open Session where the decision was deferred until Officers could report back on a final negotiated figure with Fire & Emergency Services on the 15 Karanema Drive site.

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     Fire & Emergency have undertaken an independent valuation of the pump station proposal.

3.2     The other property affected by this proposal is at 43B Napier Road. The property owners have also been fully supportive of the proposal and have undertaken their own valuation in regard to easements and injurious affection.

3.3     Negotiations between The Property Group and the various parties has been ongoing to reach a position of ‘agreement in principle’ with respect to the acquisition of land and easements to achieve a clearer position as to likely compensation costs to Council for this option.

3.4     It is important to note that the figures presented in this report are not the full and final compensation negotiated, but an estimate of the likely full and final compensation.

3.5     The parties have indicated they are willing to enter into final agreements. The final negotiated price cannot be determined precisely until a decision on the pump station site is made.

3.6     The current compensation value is however within a range that Council can proceed with its decision.

3.7     No contingency has been added to these figures in the event of any unforeseen matter and cost (design change, compensation, reinstatement or otherwise) arising during final negotiations. It may therefore be prudent to allow for a minor contingency.

4.0     OPTIONS

4.1     There are two options for siting the pump station.

4.2     Option 1: Open space at 25 Karanema Drive

4.3     Option 2: Industrial land owned by Fire & Emergency NZ at 15 Karanema Drive

4.4     Figure 1 – Site Location

5.0     SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1     This project is part of the Drinking Water Strategy that has been developed in response to drinking water safety concerns as a result of the August 2016 contamination event.

5.2     The provision of safe drinking water is deemed significant as it impacts on all communities within the Hastings District that are supplied via a Council run community water supply.

5.3     Council’s road map to achieve this objective has been set out in the 2018 - 28 Draft Long Term Plan and the total estimate of capital expenditure is of a value that meets the significance threshold.

5.4     The Booster Pump Station, along with the Hastings to Havelock North trunk main, is the first stage of that strategy and has been fast tracked by Council with funding approved in 2017/18.

5.5     The Booster Pump Station is a critical facility for maintaining reservoir levels and delivering an adequate water supply to Havelock North. The Officer’s view is that provided a pump station is built and operational, the choice between the two locations is not deemed significant when considering the criteria within the policy on “other matters” in relation to:

·     The number of people affected;

·     The extent of the consequence;

·     The financial implications for the Council’s overall resources;

·     The level of public interest;

·     Reversibility, how easily a decision can be undone; and

·     The consistency of the matter with existing Council policy, plans and documents.

5.6     For 15 Karanema Drive, the main issue is primarily additional cost.

          Table 1: Significance Policy Criteria and Assessment – 15 Karanema Drive

The number of people affected

The number affected will be very small, and those potentially affected have been made aware of the project.

The extent of the consequence

The consequences will be within District Plan expectations, and hence is unlikely to require resource consent.

The financial implications for the Council’s overall resources:  

15 Karanema would bring an unbudgeted increase in costs.

 

The level of public interest

At this site the level of interest would be low, subject to opposition that we are yet to become fully aware of.

 

Reversibility, how easily a decision can be undone

Once construction begins, the decision is not easily reversible.

 

The consistency of the matter with existing Council policy, plans and documents

There are no consistency issues.

 

 

5.7     For 25 Karanema Drive a portion of the community hold strong views on the matter, many of which are RMA related issues.

          Table 2: Significance Policy Criteria and Assessment – 25 Karanema Drive

The number of people affected

The number affected is likely to be small – limited to those in the immediately surrounding homes and those who make use of the open space the site provides.  Those potentially affected have been made aware of the project (in part by the Council and in part as a result of the community interest and its reporting).

The extent of the consequence

Some of those living near the site consider the consequences for them will be serious.  Largely, those issues would be considered in the context of the decision making process for the needed resource consent (independently decided due to the Council’s involvement as applicant).  That includes issues such as noise, and visual prominence.  While the pump station’s surrounds would remain public open space there would be a lessening of the size and natural landscape of that space, and this may not be directly considered as a part of the resource consent process which is likely to focus on the end result rather than the current land use.

The financial implications for the Council’s overall resources:  

None – it is currently budgeted work.

The level of public interest

There is strong interest from those that are potentially affected.  The wider public interest appears low, and may well go in both directions (some wanting to retain the open space / natural character, and others wanting to minimise costs).

Reversibility, how easily a decision can be undone

Once construction begins, the decision is not easily reversible.

 

The consistency of the matter with existing Council policy, plans and documents

There are no consistency issues

 

 

5.8     As previously reported, the extent of community consultation has been in response to objections from adjoining neighbours and a sector of the community that are adjacent to the proposed site at 25 Karanema Drive.

5.9     Public meetings have been held and petitioners attended the Council meeting on 26 April where they were able to speak to their petition.

5.10    Opposition to the site at 15 Karanema Drive has been received by one property owner in regard to the proposed site, the potential for noise generation and visual impacts.

5.11    All interested parties have been invited to attend this meeting to hear Council’s decision on the matter.

5.12    To the extent that consultation might be thought necessary, it is the Officer’s view that the level of community feedback that this question has received to date, both direct and via the petition / petitioners, provides you with an understanding of the views of the community that is sufficient in terms of s82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.0     ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1     The following items have been considered in preparing the updated comparison for each location option;

·     Land and easement acquisitions

·     Planning requirements

·     Pipeline supply and installation

·     Booster pump station design and site layout

·     Electrical supply

·     Noise mitigation

·     Impact on program

6.2     Councillors are referred to Section 6 of the previous report (Refer Attachment 1) for details of each item.

6.3     Update on Land and Easement Acquisitions

6.4     As outlined in Section 3 of this report, the negotiations for purchase of land at 15 Karanema Drive has reached a position of ‘agreement in principle’ in preparation for final agreements to be negotiated should this site be chosen.

6.5     Both of the potential pump station sites require the establishment of easements for the purpose of allowing site access and for the location of pipelines and services to and from the booster pump station.

6.6     Negotiations with the variously affected parties (43B Napier Rd, Fire & Emergency NZ and The Celebration Christian Fellowship Trust) are ‘in principle’ awaiting the final decision by Council on the preferred site and all parties have indicated they are willing to finalise agreements.

6.7     The following table summarises the key issues:

 

 

15 Karanema Drive and 43B Napier Rd

25 Karanema Drive

Land and Easement Acquisition

This site will require agreement for the value of land and easements.

The time it would take to acquire the land and easements is several months but could be longer if the decision is challenged.

PWA as a fall back option but significant impact on project delivery.

Negotiations for the acquisition of the required easement is well advanced, although cannot be finalised until a decision is made by Council.

PWA as a fall back option but significant impact on project delivery.

Planning

The activity at this location is likely to be deemed as permitted, therefore presents a more straight forward process.

Subdivision consent may be required but would be non-notified.

The activity at this location is considered discretionary, triggering the requirement for a land use consent.

 

The application for resource consent is currently on hold pending further information. The application is being processed by a consultant planner on behalf of Council.  Once the requested information has been provided the consultant planner will provide a report on whether the application should be publicly notified, limited notified and whether or not there are any affected persons whose written approvals are required for the application to be non-notified.

 

Design

The pump station design will be the same as for 25 Karanema Drive.

Further work is required to design the inlet and outlet pipework.

Additional foundation design and strengthening is required.

Investigations on the location and condition of the sewer rising main is necessary before confirming the inlet water pipe location from Napier Rd.

The design for the construction of the Booster Pump Station and associated pipelines at this site is more advanced than for 15 Karanema Drive.

Pipe locations and connections are known.

Construction

Construction will be straightforward with few issues other than site access to ensure that Fire Service response is not impacted.

Geotechnical issues are expected to increase foundation design.

Site is isolated from the public.

Construction will be more difficult to minimise the extent of vegetation and tree removal.

More stringent security and safety measures may be required during construction.

Noise

Further away from residential properties so less impact from noise. May require less noise attenuation measures in the building design.

Expected to comply with PDP night-time limits.

Closer to residential properties but able to comply with PDP night-time limits. Additional noise mitigation could further reduce noise.

Visual Amenity

Building design is better suited to an industrial site. One residential property will be affected by 7m building height (visual outlook).

 

Building design will need to take account of the site and its location within an open space area.

Options are available to soften the visual appearance of the building. Three properties will be impacted by building height.

Impact on Programme

In Principle Easement Agreement is prepared.

Local opposition to project and appeals could disrupt the timing of commencement.

Compulsory Acquisition via PWA – 2 years.

Only constrained by granting of resource consent.

The notification decision will have an impact in terms of time and cost if public or limited notifications are required.

In Principle Easement Agreement is prepared.

Local opposition to project and appeals could disrupt the timing of commencement.

Compulsory Acquisition via PWA – 2 years.

7.0     FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1     This project is part of the Drinking Water Strategy that has been updated in preparation for the 2018 – 28 Long Term Plan. The booster pump station is a strategic component of the Stage 1 strategy that will enable Council to discontinue the use of the Brookvale bore once treatment upgrades are completed at the Eastbourne bore supply.

7.2     The budget for the first package of work in Stage 1 was approved through the 2017-18 Annual Plan to fast track the construction of the Hastings to Havelock North trunk main, install treatment at Wilson Rd and commence planning for the BPS.

7.3     The preliminary cost estimate for the pump station component is $3.0M and this amount is included in the 2019 year of the LTP. A proportion of the 2017-18 Stage 1 budget is available to cover the preliminary costs for design, and site investigations.

7.4     The updated cost comparison assesses the differences over the base cost for the pump station in relation to each site. The review has been undertaken by Stantec who have been working on the detailed design and site assessments for this project and includes the ‘in principle’ costs agreed through the valuation process.

7.5     Through the negotiations further refinements and additional requirements have been added into the project costs. These include additional fencing at both sites and additional parking space and hardstand areas at 15 Karanema Drive to ensure that fire station activities are able to operate without impacting on the pump station access.

7.6     The preliminary assessment in the 26 April report was $1.175M more than building the pump station at 25 Karanema Drive.

7.7     Based on the updated assessment the revised additional cost to construct the pump station at 15 Karanema Drive is estimated at $900,000. This amount does not include any contingency amounts or costs to complete land and easement transactions and resource consents.

7.8     The largest proportion of this cost is made up of the land acquisition and easements required at 15 Karanema Drive and 43B Napier Road, determined from the independent valuation assessments undertaken.

8.0     CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY VIEWS

8.1     There has been considerable community consultation about this proposal.

8.2     The initial advice received during the development of the Resource Consent for the open space site at 25 Karanema Drive led to officers initiating contact with the immediately adjoining land owners.

8.3     As the project has progressed, wider community interest and concern about the project became apparent and has resulted in a number of meetings to hear those concerns in an attempt to explain the basis for the project, its location and to try and resolve matters where possible.

8.4     Community concerns have primarily focused on the Open Space site at 25 Karanema Drive and include loss of property values, access and community amenity as well as proximity to residential properties, noise and visual appearance (scale and height).

8.5     The petition received by Council in December (and formally tabled in February 2018) clearly states the objective of those signatories, to find an alternative location for the pump station and to reclassify the open space as a reserve.

8.6     There have also been a number of meetings between concerned ratepayers, the Mayor and senior Council staff, and officers have provided information to assist in discussions and alternatives options.

8.7     Council has also taken on board the community request to investigate the Fire & Emergency site as an alternative and the 26 April report detailed the pros and cons of each for Council’s consideration.

8.8     At each part of this process, Council has been willing to meet with the community to hear their views and to work towards a solution.

9.0     PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

9.1     The updated information that adds to the previous report from the 26 April 2018 meeting, does not materially change officers’ opinions and both sites remain suitable for siting the booster pump station on.

9.2     The effects of operating a pump station in either location are considered to be minor and mitigation of noise can be accommodated through design and/or other appropriate measures as required.

9.3     The cost differential favours the site at 25 Karanema Drive. The impact on access, amenity and biodiversity are able to be minimised through careful site positioning and design such that many of the community well beings are retained.

9.4     Given the extent of opposition to siting the pump station on the open space area at 25 Karanema Drive, siting the pump station on the Fire Station site would address the concerns of the public who are opposed to it and the open space area would be retained as it currently is.

9.5     The increase in cost at $900,000 to establish at the Fire Station site remains a significant increase to the $3.0M budget that has been assigned to this project. This, along with the other factors set out in item 6.7 above need to be weighed against the community opposition that has been clearly expressed.   

9.6     The Fire Station land is zoned industrial and is less likely to have an impact on the surrounding neighbourhood or generate public concern and the initial response from the public meeting was positive however not all property owners are happy for the pump station to be located here. Further consultation will be required with adjacent land owners if this site is chosen.

9.7     The pump station must be operational by November 2019 at the latest to meet the timeframes for turning off the Brookvale Road water supply. The construction period for completion and commissioning is at least 12 months.

9.8     Without the booster pump station in place, significant areas of Havelock North will be without water during peak periods which will necessitate a stringent water ban to be imposed across the entire Hastings, Havelock North and Flaxmere areas to assist in maintaining essential supply to residents.

9.9     Based on our previous experience of this during the 2016/17 summer period when the Brookvale supply was not available, the consequences of significant periods without water is a certainty for many.

9.10    In the officer’s opinion, compromising the water supply to this extent is a critical consideration in terms of the decision before Council.   

9.11    In summary, Council’s reference for making its decision on the preferred location is guided by the Purpose of Local Government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.

            Figure 2 – S.10 LGA - Purpose of Local Government

10  Purpose of local government

(1)  The purpose of local government is-

(a)     To enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and

(b)   to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

(2)   In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are--

(a)    efficient; and

(b)   effective; and

(c)   appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

 

10.0    RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Water Services Manager titled Havelock North Booster Pump Station dated 28/06/2018 be received.

EITHER

B)      That Council determines the preferred pump station site as being either 15 Karanema Drive.

OR

C)      That Council determines the preferred pump station site as being 25 Karanema Drive.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)        The provision of high quality water services that are safe, and infrastructure that meets the need of the community and is cost effective. 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Council Report Havelock North Booster Pump Station 26 April 2018

18/170

 

 

 

 


Council Report Havelock North Booster Pump Station 26 April 2018

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 18/575

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Water Services Manager

Brett Chapman

SUBJECT:                 Response to Petition Seeking an Exemption from Chlorination at Haumoana and Te Awanga        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the petitioners’ request to cease chlorination of the Haumoana and Te Awanga water supply.

1.2     This request arises from opposition within the community to the introduction of chlorine into the supply on the basis that Council is not legally required to implement changes to the water supply and the bore water is of superior quality and does not require treatment. The request asks that Council pursue an exemption from treatment but acknowledges that an exemption process is yet to be considered by the Ministry of Health.

1.3     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4     The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure by providing a safe and high quality water service in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

1.5     This report concludes by recommending that Council reaffirms its previous decision that chlorination of all HDC water supplies is both appropriate and necessary. 

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     A signed petition with 308 signatories was received by Council at its 24 May 2018 meeting.

2.2     The petition requests that Council ceases chlorination of the Haumoana and Te Awanga water supply for the following reasons:

2.2.1   Council is not legally required to treat or chlorinate the supply;

2.2.2   That there needs to be sufficient time for residents that do not wish to have exposure to chlorine, to install filters;

2.2.3   The water supply is different from many others and;

2.2.4   The high levels of iron and manganese turn bright orange when chlorine is dosed.

2.3     The petition accepts that a period of chlorination to clean the infrastructure may be necessary but once that is done then the supply can be UV treated but not chlorinated.

2.4     The petition also refers to The Stage 2 report of the Board of Inquiry into the Havelock North contamination incident making mention of a potential exemption regime that water suppliers could apply for to remove the need for treatment of source water.

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     On 14 June 2018, officers met with the Mayor, Councillors Heaps and Redstone and the lead petitioner Sue Franklin.

3.2     At that meeting the CEO explained that the reasons why he had instructed the initiation of chlorine dosing on all HDC supplies that were not currently chlorinated was based on advice received from the Director General of Health under Section 69ZZZC of the Health Act 1956. (Refer Attachment 1).

3.3     These requirements were similarly reinforced by the CEO of the Hawkes Bay District Health Board advising “that effective and appropriate treatment is necessary for all supplies.” (Refer Attachment 2).

3.4     The specific advice requires:

3.4.1      The protection of drinking water sources;

3.4.2      Drinking water suppliers must contribute to the protection of drinking water supplies;

3.4.3      The risk to the public is increased if drinking water is untreated;

3.4.4      Untreated drinking water supplies should consider implementing appropriate and effective treatment without delay; and

3.4.5      Drinking water suppliers should reconsider their reliance on secure bore water status being used as a means of providing safe drinking water.

3.5     Based on that advice, the CEO implemented immediate measures (chlorination) as the first step in a risk based approach to ensure that all water supplies under the management of HDC are as safe as practicable while further and more permanent treatment measures are instigated.

3.6     Investigations into the various source water supplies and our reliance on those sources has also confirmed that we cannot rely on the aquifers alone to protect the water supply and treatment of the source water is necessary.

3.7     Chlorination is a proven technology that provides residual protection of water in the reticulation and is necessary in addition to any treatment at source. 

3.8     This treatment approach is part of a multi-barrier risk management framework and the Drinking Water Assessors (DWA) have independently confirmed that Council’s approach is both appropriate and effective.

3.9     The specific effects on the Haumoana and Te Awanga water supply are exacerbated by the presence of moderate levels of iron, manganese and ammonia in the source supply.

3.10    The treatment of the supply using low levels of chlorine to remove the ammonia has been in place for almost two decades through a MIOX treatment system.

3.11    The low levels of chlorine dosed have never been sufficient to provide a disinfection residual or to be noticed within the community. 

3.12    With the introduction of chlorine from late March, operations staff and contractors instigated a routine flushing programme to minimise any issues with the iron and manganese and very few complaints have been logged through our customer service centre.

3.13    A chlorine residual is now being routinely achieved and people within the community are now noticing the typical signatures of a chlorinated supply (taste and odour).

3.14    These effects are likely to reduce as the network of pipes and reservoirs re-adjusts over time.

3.15    The current NZ Drinking Water Standards do not provide for an exemption from treatment.

3.16    While the Board of Inquiry makes mention of a future regime that might incorporate an exemption process, no process currently exists.

4.0     OPTIONS

4.1     There are no options available that enable Council to cease chlorination.

4.2     Council is required to comply with Drinking Water Standards for NZ and needs to demonstrate that it is complying with the advice received from the Director General of Health and the CEO of the HB District Health Board.

4.3     Any decision by a water supplier that increases the risk to consumers would be considered a breach of Part 2A of the Health Act that legislates for drinking water.

4.4     Section 69A sets out the purpose of the Act in regard to Drinking Water as follows:

4.5     “….to protect the health and safety of people and communities by promoting adequate supplies of safe and wholesome drinking water from all drinking water supplies.”

4.6     The Act also requires water suppliers to take all practicable steps to minimise the severity and harm from risks that are reasonably known to the water supplier.

4.7     The advice from the Board of Inquiry, through its investigation of the Havelock North contamination event, and the subsequent advice from the Director General of Health and the CEO of the HB District Health Board is sufficient to warrant the steps that have been taken and are being progressed to provide a safe and wholesome water supply.

4.8     Chlorination is a technology that has been proven worldwide and is an integral part of a multi-barrier treatment approach.

4.9     Implementing chlorination as an immediate response to the directives received has been accepted by the DWA as an appropriate response to minimise the risk to the supply from groundwater derived source water that can longer be considered safe without treatment.

5.0     SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1     The meeting held with the lead petitioners in the Mayor’s office on 14 June was well received.

5.2     It provided an opportunity for the petitioners to explain their concerns and for officers to set out the basis for the decision to chlorinate.

5.3     There was much discussion about the technical aspects of chlorination and advice was offered in terms of measures that can be implemented by individuals to minimise the effects of chlorine.

5.4     Both parties felt that the meeting was very helpful in clarifying the decision to chlorinate and resolved the misunderstanding that an exemption to treatment process existed.

5.5     If Council were to decide to cease chlorination then it is certain that the Significance Policy would be triggered.

5.6     This decision would have implications in regard to all water supplies within the District, the extent of people affected would be significant as would the potential for significant fines and/or the management of water supplies being removed from Council control.

5.7     It is also possible that Councillors could be held individually or collectively liable to prosecution if a serious health issue were to occur as a result of a decision to remove chlorination.

6.0     PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

6.1     The Chief Executive Officer’s instruction to implement chlorination to all HDC supplies is considered appropriate and necessary and is in accordance with the Health Act 1956 and the Drinking Water Standards for NZ 2005 (Revised 2008).

6.2     There is no exemption process within the Health Act or the drinking water standards.

6.3     Discussion about an exemption to the treatment of source water is being considered nationally but will have no effect on the decision to implement permanent chlorination to achieve a disinfection residual within the distribution zone that is designed to protect drinking water after treatment and prior to consumption.

6.4     For these reasons, the petitioners’ requests are not able to be implemented.

 

 

7.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Water Services Manager titled Response to Petition Seeking an Exemption from Chlorination at Haumoana and Te Awanga dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)      That as part of its multi-barrier treatment approach, Council reaffirms that chlorination of all HDC water supplies is both appropriate and necessary.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure that delivers a safe and high quality water services in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)        Ensuring community water supplies are safe and wholesome and that effective and appropriate treatment is in place.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Director General Statement Health Act 1956 s 69ZZZC

WAT-20-30-18-1613

 

2

Effective Treatment of Water Supplies

CG-14-1-00832

 

 

 

 


Director General Statement Health Act 1956 s 69ZZZC

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


Effective Treatment of Water Supplies

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 18/280

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Projects and Public Space Manager

Russell Engelke

SUBJECT:                 Tainui Track Development        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on the upgrade of all walking tracks within Tainui Reserve, as per the recommendations in the Frame Group report.

1.2     This issue arises from the petition received on the 14 February 2017 where petitioners requested that the deposited gravel in Tainui Reserve be removed and returned to a natural state of either hard baked earth or bark chips. An independent track specialist was engaged to provide advice and recommendations for all tracks within Tainui Reserve and this information was presented to the community on 28 and 29 November 2017 and to a Council workshop on 27 February 2018. This presentation included the recommendation of track classification in Tainui Reserve, and appropriate treatments for each track along with cost implications.

1.3     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4     The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the delivery of good quality, cost effective park infrastructure that contributes to public health and safety while providing recreational opportunity.

1.5     This report concludes by recommending the upgrade of all walking tracks within Tainui Reserve, as bench marked to meet the New Zealand Track Standards (SNZ HB 8630:2004) over a period of 8 years as per recommendations from the Frame Group report.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     Tainui reserve is popular with local residents as it offers a natural park experience with challenging topography.  It is used by walkers and joggers as well as an off-lead area for those exercising their dogs.

2.2     This reserve’s management regime is as generally expected from a natural reserve rather than what one would expect at a more manicured reserve such as Frimley Park. 

2.3     Council adopted a Reserve Management Plan for Tainui Reserve in 2015.  This plan identifies a number of agreed actions to improve the public’s experience of the park in general.  The LTP includes a level of annual funding for;

·    Improved paths and tracks

·    New plantings

·    Formation of a land care group (which has been now formed)

2.4     A 148 signature petition was presented to Council on 14 February 2017.  The petitioners raised issue with the condition of the paths in Tainui Reserve, stating that previously undertaken track work had left a sharp, stony surface that was uneven and rough and posed health and safety issues for park users.

2.5     The petitioners’ requested that the newly deposited gravel be removed and returned to a natural state of either hard baked earth or bark chips.

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     The Tainui Care Group was established in March 2017. The Group have met every two months and have assisted with new plantings, watering larger trees over summer, spreading mulch as required, and removal of some self-seeded pest trees.

3.2     Trevor Butler of Frame Group Ltd, an independent track specialist, was engaged to provide advice and recommendations for all tracks within Tainui Reserve and this information was presented to the community on 28 and 29 November 2017 and to a Council workshop on 27 February 2018. This presentation included the recommendation of track classification in Tainui Reserve, and appropriate treatments for each track along with cost implications. These are presented in Attachment 1: Frame Group Track Development Recommendations.

3.3     This report identifies the current track standard and proposed classification, the condition and associated issues, the recommended width, required work and estimated cost for each track. This work is programmed into a year period depending on the urgency of the work required.

3.4     Attachment 2: Pavement Surfacing discusses the use of a well graded GAP20 material with a maximum particle size of 20mm with 50% broken faces, and a clay fines content of 5% to 10%. This is placed to a minimum compacted depth of 50mm in a single layer.

3.5     Trials of recommended track material are currently being organised with a local contractor to ensure that the suggested material can be sourced and mixed locally, meets the criteria in the Frame Group report and can be replicated for tracks across the district, as required. HDC officers are working alongside Holcim and Winstone aggregate suppliers to develop the best mix. 

3.6     A Report on the Tainui Tracks was received from Frame Group and is attached as Attachment 3: Park Track Surfacing Assessment: Tainui Reserve.

3.7     The tracks in Tainui Reserve have been scoped and are shown in Attachment 4: Tainui Tracks Overall Plan. The tracks were walked as part of the initial review by Frame Group, a contour plan overlaid and recommendations made at the time for improvements to all tracks in the reserve. The track Standards can be seen in Attachment 5: Track Standards. The majority of the tracks identified in the Frame Group report fall into the Short Walk or Walking Track classification.

4.0     OPTIONS

4.1     There are three options available to Council regarding the delivery of track improvements in Tainui Reserve:

·    Option 1 – Upgrade the walking tracks in Tainui Reserve as per the Frame Group report over the proposed 8 year timeframe

·    Option 2 – Upgrade the walking tracks in Tainui Reserve over a different timeframe.

·    Option 3 – Status Quo. Do not upgrade the walking tracks in Tainui Reserve as per the Frame Group report

5.0     SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1     The significance of this matter has been raised through a number of forums, including Council workshops, two public meetings on site with interested parties, the Tainui Care Group and petitioners.

5.2     The extent of work recommended does not trigger the Council’s significance land engagement policy. 

5.3     The views of the community and petitioners have been considered and are proposed to be addressed through the mechanism of the National Track Standards (SNZ HB 8630:2004).

5.4     The Care Group and lead petitioner have been kept up to date with progress throughout the process.

6.0     ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1     There is a growing desire to see tracks across the District consistent in their classification and anticipated finish. This is a new approach to walking tracks, one which allows Council an assurance that users of the tracks have an understanding of the expected track gradient, width and finish. This approach also provides clarity for budgeting purposes regarding the level required.

6.2     Tracks would be sign posted at each starting point so as to inform the users of the particular track and give certainty as to the track gradient, distance, anticipated duration and difficulty. This would match tracks to user ability and result in safer use of tracks. The track classification as seen in Attachment 5: Track Standards would allow users to look online or identify tracks at the entry points into a reserve, acknowledge what visitor group they represent, and be able to anticipate a maximum track gradient and track width. It is also intended that signage would cover the track distance and anticipated duration to complete the track, as one would find on many DOC tracks.

6.3     The Tainui Tracks have been the focus of much attention and criticism for some time, hence the involvement of an external expert to offer advice and direction. With this in mind, Option 3: Do nothing is not advised. There is a community expectation for improvement and the delivery of a surface that allows for better enjoyment of the reserve. The condition of many of the tracks are considered unsafe for use and require urgent attention. Doing nothing would not be advised.

 

6.4     Option 1 was presented by Frame Group as the way to complete all improvements in Tainui Reserve over a period of 8 years. The work has been assessed and prioritised according to the need for improvement. This option allows the initial work to occur to deal with areas of concern, and less urgent upgrades to be rolled out according to the prioritising identified by Frame Group. This programme is anticipated to cost $152K over an eight year period. Council has a current budget of $67K set aside for this improvement, with an additional $20K in 2018/19 and $40K in 2019/20. The bulk of the work identified in the Frame Group report is prioritized for the first 1-2 years, allowing the programmed works for years one and two to be delivered within existing budgets. The new capital budget for track development in Tainui, Tanner, Hikanui and Tauroa reserves consists of the following:

 

2018/19

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25

2025/26

2026/27

2027/28

$20K

$40K

$40K

$35K

$35K

$35K

$35K

0

0

0

This budget would allow officers to deliver the required Tainui Reserve track work within existing budgets as well as begin the more urgent track improvements in Tanner Reserve, Tauroa Reserve and Hikanui Reserve. The full extent of this work has not been scoped, but is considered a lot less than that required in the extensive track network within Tainui Reserve. Officers will return to Council at a later stage to update Council on the work required to complete the track improvements in the remainder of all HDC reserves.

6.5     Option 3: the implementation over a different period is also presented as a viable option. If Council were of a mind to speed up the process, this could be rolled out in a timeframe as directed by Council and budgets adjusted to meet the prescribed timeframe.

7.0     PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1     The preferred option is Option 1 – Implement the recommended track improvement programme in Tainui Reserve over 8 years as per the Frame Group Report. This timeframe would allow officers to deliver the urgent work immediately and complete the programme within existing budgets over the 8 year period. This would also allow officers time to inform the public and users of the tracks on what to expect from each track when visiting Tainui Reserve.

7.2     There is a growing desire across Hawke’s Bay to have a consistent approach to Track Development. Officers have been approached by Te Mata Park trustees, HBRC Open Spaces managers and Napier City Council project managers for advice in the roll out of new tracks and specification for improving the existing track network.

 

8.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Projects and Public Space Manager titled Tainui Track Development dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)      That Council adopt Option 1 – Upgrade the walking tracks in Tainui         Reserve as per the Frame Group report over the proposed 8 year         timeframe

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local and public infrastructure by:

i)        meeting the needs of our community by creating infrastructure that allows for best practice walking tracks in parks and reserves across the Hastings District.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

 Tainui Reserve ~ Frame Group Recommendations Tainui track

CFM-17-49-1-18-124

2

Pavement Surfacing

CFM-17-49-1-18-126

3

Trevor Butler, Frame Group - Report on Tainui Reserve

CFM-17-49-1-18-117

4

Tainui Reserve Track - Overall track masterplan

CFM-17-49-1-18-125

5

Track standards

CFM-17-49-1-18-127

 

 

 


PDF Creator


Pavement Surfacing

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


Trevor Butler, Frame Group - Report on Tainui Reserve

Attachment 3

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Tainui Reserve Track - Overall track masterplan

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Track standards

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 18/423

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Acting Transportation Engineer

Gavin O'Connor

SUBJECT:                 Review of Speed Limits Bylaw and Schedules        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council to adopt the decision made on the 4th May 2018 in relation to the Speed Limit bylaw and amendments to the Schedules.

1.2     This proposal arises from the consultation process on the Council’s Speed Limit Bylaw and Schedules. This report follows the receiving of submissions, the completion of the hearing of submissions, consideration of technical information provided by Officers, the debate and the deliberations of the issues raised.

1.3     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4     The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to perform its regulatory function in regards to the Setting of Speeds under both the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 (“the Rule”) (including all its amendments).

1.5     This report concludes by recommending a number of changes to the speed limit bylaw as per the in-principle decision made on 4th May 2018.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     At the Council meeting on 4th May 2018 the Council completed all relevant provisions contained within the Act and the Rule with regards to the proposed amendments to the Hastings speed limit bylaw.

2.2     A copy of the minutes of the meeting on 4th May 2018 is attached to this report.

2.3     The final step in confirming the changes to the bylaw is one of technical compliance with the provisions of the Act.  This report finalises the proposed changes to the bylaw which will come in to effect on 1st August 2018.

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     The Council has received, considered, and discussed verbal and written submissions as set out in the Council agenda for the meeting on 4th May 2018.

3.2     Officers have taken note of the matters raised outside the bylaw and are scheduling the additional speed requests.  A future report will be presented to Council discussing these requests and identifying a proposed approach to the next stages of the speed limit review.

3.3     Council confirmed a number of decisions and requested that officers report to the Council meeting on 28 June 2018 (this meeting) to enable the appropriate updates to the bylaw plans and schedules to be completed and subsequently ratified by Council.

3.4     The positions adopted regarding proposed changes to the current speed limits limits are shown in the table below:

Road name

Current speed limit
(Km/h)

New speed limit
(Km/h)

Description

Arataki Road

70

50

From Brookvale Road to the current extent of the 50km/h speed limit near Russell Robertson Drive

Chatham Road

70

50

For entire length between current 50km/h limits at Margate Avenue and near Omahu Road.

Farndon Road

100

80

From Pakowhai Road through to the current 50km/h speed limit approximately 1km from SH2.

Kirkwood Road

70

50

To extend the 50km/h speed limit area to a point 350m northwest of Wilkes Place

Percival Road

100

50

For its entire length

St Georges Road

100

80

From the current 80km/h threshold sign to Te Aute Road

York Road

100

80

From the current 70km/h speed limit sign 140m north west of the intersection with Maraekakaho Road to SH50A

3.5     This position was adopted after considering the submissions received, and the requirements of the Rule.

3.6     In addition, a number of minor amendments were proposed to ensure the bylaw accurately reflects what is on site.  The changes are detailed in the table below:

Location

Bylaw

Proposed Change

East Road

50km/h speed limit is shown to commence at Rockwood Place.

Amend bylaw to align with the sign location which is approximately 75m west of the intersection with Rockwood Place

Kereru Road

50km/h speed limit area extending for 600m from a point 250m west of the intersection with SH50.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit extending for 750m from a point 250m west of the intersection with SH50.

Haumoana Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 200m west of the intersection with Hyla Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 260m west of the intersection with Hyla Road.

Te Mata Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 210m east of the intersection with Blackbarn Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 250m east of the intersection with Blackbarn Road.

Te Aute Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 100m west of the intersection with Upham Street.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 200m west of the intersection with Upham Street.

Middle Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at the intersection of Breadalbane Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 150m west of the intersection with Breadalbane Road.

School Road (Clive)

50km/h speed limit extends for a distance of 480m from the intersection with Ferry Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone extending for 800m from the intersection with Ferry Road.

Swamp Road

No 50km/h speed zone shown

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone extends north from the intersection of Taihape Road for a distance of 130m.

Vicarage Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 250m west of the intersection with Dartmooor Road.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 350m west of the intersection with Dartmoor Road.

Waimarama Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 80m north of the intersection with Gillies Crescent.

Amend bylaw to show speed limit zone commencing at a point 180m north of the intersection with Gillies Crescent.

Riverslea Road

50km/h speed limit commences immediately east of the intersection with Tollemache Road.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing 20m west of the intersection with Tollemache Road.

Henderson Road

50km/h speed limit zone extends for a distance of 350m from the intersection with Omahu Road.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone extends for a distance of 380m from the intersection with Omahu Road.

Howard Street

50km/h speed limit zone extends for a distance of 320m from the intersection with Windsor Avenue.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone extends for a distance of 510m from the intersection with Windsor Avenue.

Puketapu Road

50km/h speed limit extends for a distance of 300m from the intersection with Dartmoor Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit extends for a distance of 120m form the intersection with Dartmoor Road.

 

4.0     OPTIONS

5.0    
RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Acting Transportation Engineer titled Review of Speed Limits Bylaw and Schedules dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)      That all submitters be responded to in accordance with the decisions made following the hearing submissions.

C)      That the attached Bylaw and Bylaw Plans be adopted with effect from 1st August 2018.

D)      That, in terms of Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, the principles set out in that section have been observed in such a manner that the Hastings District Council considers, in its discretion, is appropriate for the decisions made during the consideration of this matter.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to the performance of regulatory functions and good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business) by:

·    Reviewing, consulting, considering, and setting the limits as per the Land Transport Rule : Setting of Speed Limits 2017 and Local Government Act 2002  by considering the cost effect on households and businesses and determining the safe and appropriate speed for roads or sections of roads.

·    Providing improvements to the safety performance of the road network in a way that is appropriate and credible.That all submitters be responded to in accordance with the decisions made following the hearing submissions.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Minutes with  decision for Speed Bylaws 4 May 2018

CG-14-1-00730

Separate Doc

2

Speed Limit Plans for By-Law

CG-14-1-00823

Separate Doc

3

Bylaws

LEG-02-34-14-486

Separate Doc

  


File Ref: 18/553

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Principal Advisor: District Development

Mark Clews

SUBJECT:                 Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy Assessment Panel report and Stage 4 Scope        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to resume consideration of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy - Joint Committee’s (the Joint Committee) recommendation, on the final report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels.

1.2     This issue arises from completion of Stage 3 of the strategy process to develop a long term vision and hazard management strategy for this section of the coast.

1.3     The objective of the strategy relevant to the purpose of Local Government is good quality local infrastructure and regulation for the management of coastal hazards in the study area to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of the community.

1.4     This report concludes by recommending that the Council receive the report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels and endorse the recommended pathways for further consideration in Stage 4 of the Strategy development as set out in the draft scope of inquiry, including issues of funding, for the purpose of wider community consultation.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     The background to this issue was covered in the report to Council on 22 March 2018, but in brief the coastline between Tangoio and Clifton is defined by a gravel barrier ridge, which acts as a vital defence from the sea. Sea level rise and climate change present an increasing threat to the integrity of the ridge and therefore increased risk of beach erosion and inundation through overtopping and sea level rise. In 2014 a joint committee comprising the three affected Council’s and Iwi representatives was set-up to recommend a strategy for managing these coastal hazard risks.

2.2     At the meeting of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee on 20 February 2018 (as shown in the draft minutes at Attachment B), the Committee resolved to: 

1)     Receive the Report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels.

2)     Endorse the recommendations of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels as presented in their report dated 14 February 2018.

3)     Recommend that the Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council endorse and adopt the recommendations of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels as presented in their report dated 14 February 2018, and commence Stage 4 (Implementation) of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120.

2.3     Hastings District Council, along with the other partner Councils, have already committed to including $100, 000 per year (uninflated) for the next ten years in its draft LTP (assuming confirmation through the LTP processes).  This money is intended to cover Stage 4 of the Strategy and includes the planning phase of design and budget refinements, cost sharing and funding options and preparing for implementation.

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     At its meeting on 22 March 2018, Council declined to adopt the recommendation of the Assessment Panels as recommended by the Joint Committee, but instead resolved:

A.     To receive the report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels, and agree to consider the recommendations contained therein.

B.     That workshops be held to enable Council to consider the Panel recommendations and that following those workshops the recommendations and an officer report be reported back to Council by the end of June 2018.

C.     Agree to commence work on issues to be contained in Stage 4 of the Implementation Strategy, including issues of funding.

3.2     A workshop was held on 3 May 2018 where Council considered potential issues relating to:

 

•    Legal and Environment

•    Benefits and Costs

•    Funding and Responsibilities

•    Wider Community Consultation.

3.3     Council indicated that Stage 4 should address these potential Issues and expressed a desire for the stage 4 scope to be reported back Council by the end of June 2018.

 

Legal and Environment

3.4     Implementation of a Strategy will likely involve the need for resource consents to be obtained and these will need to be assessed against the policy and rule frameworks of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Regional Coastal Environment Plan as well as District Plans in some instances.

3.5     The recommended pathways should be assessed against the current policy framework and any necessary recommends changes to the pathways or to the RCEP/DPs to facilitate pathway implementation identified. These in turn will need to be assessed as to their compatibility with the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the National Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NCPS), noting that Plans must give effect to the NCPS, and acknowledging that in some ways the NZCPS appears to discourage (but not prohibit) hard engineering solutions.

3.6     This will necessarily need to include at least a preliminary benefit cost analysis as required by section 32A of the Act (including alternatives) and assessments of environmental effects, together with recommended mitigation measures designed to minimise adverse effects on the coastal environment.

3.7     The assessments will also need to canvass the Ability/Inability of Plans (and recommended changes to them) to control investment behind defence systems, that might otherwise increase the risk in the event of them being overwhelmed by sea level rise much earlier than anticipated, given the uncertainty associated with the scale and speed of climate change and sea level rise (the moral hazard).

 

Benefits and Costs

3.8     The report to Council in March noted that the recommended pathway costs are highly indicative at this stage, with a large estimate range, amounting to several $100m dollars across the region. It also noted that comparative benefits and socio/environmental effects also indicative. Clearly the next stage needs move the pathways forward to detailed design, which would be unnecessary and inefficient for all the options. Accordingly the panel preferred pathways form an appropriate basis for refining the pathways, likely costs structures and any associated benefits. Similarly the do-minimum/retreat option (Plan B) also needs some refinement and more targeted cost estimating to satisfy the public consultation requirements at the end of the stage 4 process.

 

Funding and Responsibilities

3.9     While the cost benefit analysis will help determine from an economy wide perspective the value for money of the recommended pathways versus the do minimum, this does not necessarily make them affordable. Critical to affordability is the public private split of the benefits/costs assessment under section 103 of the Local Government Act.

3.10    Affordability then needs to be tested with the private beneficiaries for their share and also with the public agencies responsible for raising the public share, underpinning the financial capacity assessment considerations that are required of Councils under the Local Government Act. There is also balance sheet and financial exposure consideration in how Councils rate for the private good portion of the costs. This later point is also related to the responsibility for planning, consenting and constructing any works associated with the pathways.

3.11    Until these have been determined and agreed, it cannot be said that there is an adopted strategy that can be implemented.

 

Wider Community Consultation.

3.12    The Joint Committee used the Community Panels process to inform its recommendation to the Councils. The panels were comprised of people representing the local communities that are at risk and also therefore likely to be liable for a significant proportion of the funding required, (particularly given that inundation, rather than erosion, is the more significant risk from the perspective of the people and private/public assets involved as well as the unpredictability of occurrence). In addition representatives of local iwi, recreational interests, and lifelines were also included. A representative of the wider community was also appointed to help with balance.

3.13    There were two open days held to engage further with local communities and the media campaign did attempt to reach out to the wider community, both with some, but limited success. While the level of engagement was appropriate to the "optioneering" stage of the strategy development exercise, it will be insufficient for the purpose of adopting a strategy and making funding provision for its implementation for the scale of the investments that may be required over time.

3.14    Accordingly there cannot be an adopted strategy that is capable of implementation until there has been wider consultation with the community and the appropriate time for that will be following completion of Stage 4. This will ensure that the information needs of the community are met.

3.15    In this respect, it is highly likely that the strategy and accompanying implementation programme will trigger the Councils’ policies on significance and engagement which invoke the requirement for use of the special consultative procedure, either mid-Long Term Plan or at the next Long Term Planning round. Accordingly Stage 4 should be aimed at collating sufficient information to qualify as a Statement of Proposal and Summary of Information under the Local Government Act.

Stage 4

3.16    Given all this it is possible that Stage 4 may have been mischaracterised as response implementation, given that these matters and in particular funding and consideration community wide consultation, has yet to occur. It is accepted by all parties that this will need to be resolved before committing to intervention in natural processes and very significant expenditure.

3.17    Similarly the Panel’s report, while a key component, it is not of itself a strategy that is capable of implementation, as it does not yet include some important key elements that would enable actions to occur. Stage 4 therefore needs to be seen as the necessary planning that is required in order to establish that the recommended pathways, as the preferred defence response, can in fact be implemented, and to compare that with a do-minimum/retreat alternative for consultation purposes with the community.

3.18    Since the Council workshop held in May, the Technical Advisory Group has taken on board the Council’s concerns and commenced preparing a Draft Scope for Stage 4. The current Draft is attached as Appendix 1 and may be further refined before submitting to the Joint Committee for approval on 28 September 2018. Without it being overly specific and prescriptive, Officers consider it substantially addresses Council’s areas of concern, and following completion of Stage 4  all parties should be in a position to adopt a strategy based on the Panel’s recommendations and the Stage 4 work for public consultation purposes. Accordingly the Panel’s report can endorsed in principle for the purpose of the Stage 4 work substantially in accordance with the scope attached to this report while remaining open minded to the feedback from the consultative process that will follow.

4.0     OPTIONS

4.1     Endorse the Panel’s recommendations in principle for the purposes of further development in accordance with the Draft Stage 4 Scope and wider public consultation.

4.2     Request changes to the Stage 4 Scope as a condition of endorsing the Panel’s recommendations for further development.

4.3     Do not endorse the Panel’s recommendations for further development in Stage 4 and refer the matter back to the Joint Committee for further analysis.

5.0     SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1     The strategy has significant implications for the way in which the coastal environment will be managed over many decades and the costs over the hundred year life of the strategy run into potential several hundred million dollars across the region, all of which will necessitate further ongoing consultative processes. Not the least will be the consultation needed to secure funding through the Long Term Plans and Thirty Year Infrastructure Plans in the first place. Stage 4 will be a necessary pre-cursor to that consultation, but Stage 4 in itself does not trigger any policy on significance that would require consideration of whether to proceed with this stage or not.

5.2     The strategy will also inevitably require changes to the Regional Policy statement and Regional Coastal Plan. Consultation will be required and potential environmental court appeals are anticipated under the resource management act with potential numerous resource consents to implement some of the works expected by the strategy.

6.0     PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

6.1     In recommending Option 1 it is acknowledged that considerable funds have been spent by the three Councils so far, and an enormous amount of community time has invested in developing the recommendations. The Joint Committee has overseen a robust community led planning process for developing a Coastal Hazard Strategy to meet the needs of the community for the next 100 years and the Community Panels have done good work drawing together proposals for addressing coastal hazards. There is however, further work to be done before the wider community can be consulted on a fully developed strategy.

6.2     Stage 4 will therefore likewise involve considerable investment in time and money from the three Councils and with the input of the community. This should ensure robust proposals and credible do minimum options are able to be put before the wider community for consultation before significant funding allocations are included in Long Term Plans and Thirty Year Infrastructure Strategies.

6.3     If either option 2 or 3 are preferred by Council, it will need to specify the changes required, or further analysis required in order for the project to continue to be progressed. Officers however, consider the attached Stage 4 scope adequately addresses any concerns Council may have. Endorsing the recommendations in principle does not commit Council to implementing any option at this stage, and Council retains its ability to consider other options if for any reason the Stage 4 analysis suggests that may be a more prudent course of action.

 

7.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)  That the report of the Principal Advisor: District Development titled Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy Assessment Panel report and Stage 4 Scope dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)  That Council endorse the Panel’s recommendations in principle for the purposes of further development substantially in accordance with the Draft Stage 4 Scope attached to the report at A above, and wider public consultation.

C)  That the Draft Stage 4 Scope attached to the report at A above be endorsed for consideration and approval by the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Strategy Hazards Joint Committee.

With the reason for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure and regulatory functions for the management of coastal hazards in the study area in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by considering a long term adaptive pathway approach for each of the coastal areas at risk from climate change and sea level rise over the next 100 years.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Stage 4 Scope Premilimary - Attachment

STR-14-07-18-541

 

 

 

 


Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Stage 4 Scope Premilimary - Attachment

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 18/200

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Chief Financial Officer

Bruce Allan

SUBJECT:                 Omarunui LFG Generation Limited Partnership 2017/18 Annual Report         

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to present to Council the Annual Report for the year ending 31 March 2018 for the Omarunui LFG (Landfill Gas) Generation Limited Partnership (Gas Generation Partnership).

1.2     This arises from a requirement under the Partnership Agreement that requires Gas Generation Partnership to submit an Annual Report within 4 months after the end of the financial year. The Gas Generation Partnership’s financial year commences 1 April.

1.3     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4     The objective of this decision is relevant to the purpose of Local Government being to provide quality local infrastructure in a way that is cost effective to households and businesses by ensuring effective conversion of waste gas to energy. It facilitates the achievement of Council’s community outcomes included in the Long Term Plan by providing local electricity generation from renewable generation sources. It is also in line with council’s financial strategy and investment policy by providing commercial income streams and reducing reliance on rate payer funding.

1.5     This report concludes by recommending that the 2017/18 Gas Generational Partnership Annual Report be received.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     Pioneer Generation Limited and Hastings District Council established the Gas Generation Partnership for the purpose of purchasing landfill gas from the Omarunui Landfill to generate electricity using the energy facility and to sell the electricity.

2.2     Pioneer Generation Limited (the General Partner) operates and maintains the plant in accordance with the shareholder agreement for the plant and also holds the off take agreement for the electricity supplied.  Hastings District Council, through contracts with the Omarunui Refuse Landfill, supplies gas to the energy facility and leases the land occupied by the gas to energy plant.

2.3     Pioneer Generation Limited (PGL) hold 60% of the Limited Partnership shares with Hastings District Council holding 40%. Council’s investment in the Partnership was $744k.

2.4     The current advisory committee board members of the Gas Generation Partnership are:

Andrew Williamson, PGL appointment (Chairman)

Jamie Aitken, PGL appointment

Bruce Allan, HDC appointment

Brett Chapman, HDC appointment

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     2017/18 Annual Report to the Limited Partners is attached in Attachment 1.  The Annual report includes a report from the Chairman.

3.2     In the year the partnership generated 5,019 mw/h of electricity (4,616 mw/h last year) compared to 6,000mw/h budgeted, utilising 3,010m³ (2,828m³ last year) of landfill gas that would have been flared and not utilised.

3.3     It has been another challenging year for the partnership with ongoing problems with the plant and inconsistent gas extraction. Significant investment has been made at the landfill to ensure the gas from Valley D in particular is able to be extracted and transported to the plant. Further work at the Omarunui Landfill will have another 10- 12 vertical wells drilled and hooked up into the system in Valley D. This will move from having 5 vertical wells at the start of this financial year to nearly 20 vertical wells in Valley D. It is expected that from this investment there should be plenty of gas once these have been tuned in.

3.4     Total revenue for the 2017/18 Financial Year was $402k resulting in an EBITDAF loss of $38k, a significant variance to the budgeted profit of $81k for the year. While revenue increased compared to last year as a result of improvements made to the reliability of the engine it has still not been operating at a level required to deliver the financial returns required.

3.5     The average sales price per mw/h of electricity during the year was $66.62 ($64.53 last year), whereby the business case had predicted pricing to be $71.22 per mw/h.

3.6     It had previously been announced that changes to the Avoided Cost of Transmission (ACOT) regulations were to be implemented which would have impacted negatively on the scheme with payments ceasing in future years (2018/19 onwards). It was expected that this would result in reduced revenue compared to the business case. An announcement made in May 2018 has given Omarunui a reprieve as it was listed as one of a number of sites that would continue receive their respective ACOT payments. While this is only guaranteed for a further three years it is good news for the scheme with annual ACOT payments estimated at $60k per annum.

3.7     The 2016/17 Annual Report presented by the Gas Generation Partnership satisfies all the requirements as set out in the Partnership Agreement.

3.8     The Partnership has not delivered an operational surplus before depreciation over the past three years and it has eroded working capital to the point where there is limited funds available to meet future investment requirements. No dividends have been paid to the Partners. The Advisory Board are working with the engineering experts at Pioneer and our own Landfill staff to improve performance of both the plant and the quantities of gas available from the landfill. Officers will report back to Council in 6-9 months on any progress that has been made and with potential options for future ownership or investment.

3.9     Whilst the Landfill Gas plant is not meeting the financial goals set out in the business plan, it is achieving the goal of turning previously flared off gas into electricity.

4.0     SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

4.1     The issues for discussion are not significant in terms of the Council’s policy on significance and engagement and no consultation is required.

 

5.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Chief Financial Officer titled Omarunui LFG Generation Limited Partnership 2017/18 Annual Report dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)       That the Omarunui Landfill Gas Generation Limited Partnership March 2018 Annual Report be received.

 

Attachments:

 

1

2017/18 Annual Report Omarunui LFG Generation Limited Partnership

SW-6-18-39

 

 

 

 


2017/18 Annual Report Omarunui LFG Generation Limited Partnership

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 18/577

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Group Manager: Asset Management

Craig Thew

SUBJECT:                 Asset Management Plans        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council in regards to the steps taken to provide assurance that the Asset Management planning at Council is well managed and that Councils assets are being appropriately maintained.

1.2     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.3     This report concludes by recommending the Asset Management Plan executive summaries are endorsed by Council, as recommended by Risk and Audit Committee.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     The Asset centric service areas undertake detail asset management planning, the Asset Management Plans (AMPs) collate this planning information. They provide the supporting detail to the 30 year Infrastructure Strategy and Long Term Plan (LTP). The full AMP documents are working documents, undergoing updates on an ongoing process.

2.2     Councils Strategic Risk Register identifies the following risk which is related to good asset management planning.

 

Infrastructure Service Failure: Infrastructure service failure resulting in loss, or compromised operation, of essential services causing harm to the community.

2.3     The mitigations identified in the strategic risk register include:

“The probability of a significant event is reduced through application of high service levels to all infrastructure services. These service levels are achieved through robust asset management planning based on international standards, which are monitored by external audits and 3 yearly external peer reviews.”

2.4     Council are required to have comprehensive asset management plans for the core infrastructure of Roads and the Three Waters. It is these asset management plans that are the focus of this report.

2.5     Asset Management Plans are living documents, continually being updated and reviewed based on changing and improving information. It is therefore the summaries of these plans that the Council will be asked to adopt, representing the knowledge and understanding of these important assets as at a point in time.

2.6     The asset management plans also include improvement plans, these improvement plans highlight initiatives that have been identified in the asset planning process to further develop the understanding and management of the future service needs of our community.

2.7     Given the importance of these plans, it is considered good practice for Council to adopt or endorse the executive summaries of these plans prior to the adoption of the Long Term Plan. A report was presented to the Risk and Audit Subcommittee at their May 1st 2018 meeting which is attached as Attachment 1 including the Asset Management Plan executive summaries for Water, Wastewater, Stormwater and Transportation. The Risk and Audit Subcommittee resolved:

A)  That the report of the Chief Financial Officer and Group Manager: Asset Management titled “Asset Management Plans” dated 1/05/2018 be received.

B)  That the Risk and Audit Subcommittee endorse the receipt of the 2018-28 Asset Management Plan summaries for Roading, Water Supply, Waste Water and Stormwater and recommend them to Council for adoption as part of the Council’s 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

C)  That the Risk and Audit Subcommittee endorse the Group Manager: Asset Management’s proposal to commission further independent review work to inform future improvement priorities in readiness for the 2018-28 Asset Management Plans.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)      Acknowledging that the planning and understanding of Council’s important infrastructure assets are good.”

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     During the 2018-28 Long Term Plan audit, Audit NZ take a close interest in the Asset Management Plans and specialist auditors are allocated the task of reviewing these documents and the associated processes. In the Audit NZ report to Council on the Long Term Plan Consultation Document the following is noted in terms of the Water and Roading plans:

 

Quality of asset-related forecasting information

The Water and Roading Asset Management Plans (AMP) were reviewed by our sector specialists. Through discussion with infrastructure staff, a high level assessment of the District Council’s planning systems, review of the infrastructure strategy, and a review of the asset management plans the overall quality and material completeness of the Roading and Water Asset Management Plans was assessed as good. These are a sound basis on which to base the asset related forecasts and no significant improvements were noted.

We have specifically reviewed the projects in terms of the work that is required to the water infrastructure as a result of the Havelock North water contamination event and the required replacements of rural bridges. We have also gained an understanding of asset renewal expenditure. The renewal spend matches the requirements as modelled through the AMPs and there were no issues noted as a result of our review.”

 

4.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Group Manager: Asset Management and Group Manager: Asset Management titled Asset Management Plans dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)      That the Council endorse the 2018-28 Asset Management Plan summaries for Roading, Water Supply, Waste Water and Stormwater.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)        Acknowledging that the planning and understanding of Councils important infrastructure assets are good.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Risk & Audit Subcommittee 1 May 2018 - Asset Management Plans

CG-14-1-00829

Separate Doc

 

 

 


File Ref: 18/552

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Strategy Manager

Lex Verhoeven

SUBJECT:                 Adoption of 2018-28 Long Term Plan and Development Contributions Policy        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the adoption of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan and Development Contributions Policy.

1.2     This issue arises from the requirement within the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) to have adopted a Long Term Plan prior to 1 July 2018.

The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.3     The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to meet the planning, consultation and decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.4     This report is an administrative matter and concludes by recommending that the 2018-28 Long Term Plan and Development Contributions Policy be adopted.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     At the Council meeting dated 5 June 2018 (concluding 11 June) the Council completed all the relevant provisions contained within the Act regarding the preparation of a Long Term Plan and amendment to a Development Contributions Policy.

2.2     A copy of the minutes of the meeting which commenced on Tuesday 5 June 2018 is attached  to this report (Attachment 1).

2.3     The final step in the long term plan process is one of technical compliance with the provisions of the Act.  Final audit clearance is required prior to formal Council adoption.

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     At the time of preparing this report the Council is awaiting final audit approval for adoption of its Long Term Plan and amended Development Contributions Policy.  Officers will update Council at the meeting.  The final budget position for the 2018/19 year is a 5.8% increase in overall rate requirement (inclusive of drinking water investment) as resolved at the earlier Council meeting to consider submissions.

3.2     Before Council can resolve to set the rates for the 2018/19 financial year, Council must first adopt the Long term Plan which confirms the budget for the year.  The resolution setting the rates for the 2018/19 year will be made at the July Council meeting.

3.3     The final Long Term Plan will be circulated to Councillors as a separate document prior to the meeting.  The final Development Contributions Policy is attached incorporating minor administrative changes for correctness.

3.4     The final plan will be available to the public on/or before 28 July 2018 in accordance with the Act.

 

4.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Strategy Manager titled Adoption of 2018-28 Long Term Plan and Development Contributions Policy dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)      That the minutes of the Council meeting held on Tuesday 5 June, Wednesday 6 June and Monday 11 June 2018 be confirmed as a true and substantive record of the decisions made in respect of submissions to the Long Term Plan 2018/28 and Development Contributions Policy.

C)      That the Council delegate to the Chief Executive any inconsequential updates recommended from the audit process.

D)      That the Council adopts the Development Contributions Policy in accordance with section 102(1) of the Local Government Act 2002.

E)       That Council receive and adopt the Audit Report for inclusion in the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

F)       That the Council adopts the 2018-28 Long Term Plan in accordance with section 93 (3) of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Development Contributions Policy

CP-03-10-10-18-12

Separate Doc

2

Minutes of the LTP Council meeting 5 June 2018

CG-14-1-00830

 

3

Long Term Plan

 

Separate Doc

 

 

 


Minutes of the LTP Council meeting 5 June 2018

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Minutes of the LTP Council meeting 5 June 2018

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 18/520

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Parks Planning and Development Manager

Rachel Stuart

SUBJECT:                 Flaxmere Park Reserve Management Plan Actions        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on the proposed reallocation of funding in the 2018/19 budget for the redevelopment of Flaxmere Park, as identified in the Flaxmere Park Reserve Management Plan that was adopted in 2011.

1.2     This request arises from public consultation that has requested the reallocation of funds towards more playground equipment in the Park, rather than for carparking.

1.3     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4     The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the provision of quality parks and open spaces.

1.5     This report concludes by recommending that Council authorise the reallocation of funds in the 2018/19 financial year towards the provision of additional playground equipment in Flaxmere Park.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     The preparation of the Flaxmere Reserve Management Plan involved substantial research and consultation with the community over several years. 

2.2     A Safety Audit, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Assessment and various community consultation have all identified that Flaxmere Park lacks a distinct purpose, is too dark, has many hiding spots and there is a lack of carparking making accessibility difficult.   This inaccessibility and perception of lack of safety is exacerbated by the park being bounded on two sides by houses with close boarded private fences.

2.3     It was these safety related issues that made the preparation of a Reserve Management Plan for Flaxmere Park a priority for Council.   This priority ranking was then elevated further, in response to the proposed Flaxmere Town Centre upgrade, which, at that time, required the relocation of the skate bowl and other recreation facilities, to the park.   

2.4     Consultation with the public on the preparation of the Plan was extensive, following public notice of Council’s intention to prepare a Reserve Management Plan for Flaxmere Park being given on 8 May 2010.  This involved letters to all residents, as well as a Community Open Day on 20 May 2010, and Community Expo on 26 June 2010.   53 formal submissions, and 188 completed questionnaires were received in this initial round of consultation.  Targeted consultation was also carried out with key stakeholders, including the Flaxmere Planning Committee, the Police, local hapu, schools and other user groups.  

2.5     A workshop was held with Councillors on 14 June 2011, and the Draft Plan was formally adopted by the Policy and Strategy Committee at its meeting on 7 July 2011, for consultation purposes.

2.6     Council notified the Draft Flaxmere Park Reserve Management Plan for public comment, under Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 on 15 July 2011, with a closing date for comment on 16 September 2011.  

2.7     Over 350 individual notification letters were sent out to statutory bodies, sporting codes, environmental and interest groups, Councillors and all property owners who identified their interest during the initial consultation round.   A public notice was placed in the newspaper, and feature articles in Community Link.   12 submissions were received, which were reviewed and considered by the Reserve Management Plan Sub-Committee at its meeting on 2 November 2011.

2.8     The recommendations of the Reserve Management Plan Sub-Committee were endorsed by Council on 1 December 2011, and the Final Flaxmere Park Reserve Management Plan was adopted.

2.9     The approved Action Plan included 22 items to be implemented over ten years, with an associated budget of $1.2 million.  The approved Action Plan included new playground, Splash Pad, fenced playground, new car park, park furniture, BBQ and perimeter walking and cycling track. 

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     Over $900,000 of the allocated $1.215 million was spent in the first 5 years, on the new playground, splash pad, toilet, fencing, lighting, car parking, picnic furniture and the shared walking and cycling track.

3.2     The remaining $315,000 funds included in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 budgets are currently allocated to:

·    additional car parks and lighting;

·    cycling rest station

·    artwork

3.3     Given the time that has passed since the adoption of the Plan in 2011, officers were aware that the above priorities may have changed.  This is particularly so given that the initial carpark that was created has been successful in alleviating the traffic issues that were initially identified.  The need for an additional carpark is now therefore questioned.

3.4     Given this, Officers met with the Flaxmere Planning Committee on 7 February 2018, who endorsed the idea of going back to the community to discuss alternative options for the allocation of the funds. 

3.5     A letter was sent out to all adjoining residents of Flaxmere Park on 8 April 2018, as well as public notices and signs.     

3.6     The consultation day was held on 21 April 2018 with all of the feedback received requesting that the remaining money be reallocated to providing additional playground equipment in the park, rather than the creation of an additional carpark and accessway.  

3.7     At the same time the community were invited to make comment regarding the pond, and whether money should be spent on lining this park feature (as a requirement of required water works); or allocated to other priorities in the park.  The community overwhelmingly responded that they wished the pond to remain.

3.8     The community said it would rather spend the remaining money on more play features, with ideas including a rope climber (such as the ones in Havelock North’s Village Green and Frimley Park), a children’s cycle road (similar to the one at the Regional Sports Park) and an extension to the enormously popular Splash Pad.

3.9     The additional fitness stations identified in the Action Plan have been ordered, and are due for installation in the coming months.  In addition, concerns over the quality of portions of the pathway will be addressed with the upgrade of the defective areas.   

4.0     OPTIONS

4.1     There are two options available to Council:

Option 1: Do nothing and retain the existing adopted Action Plan

Option 2: Amend the adopted Action Plan

5.0     SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1     The reallocation of funds that are included in the Long Term Plan will not trigger any of Council’s significance thresholds.

5.2     Public consultation, and consideration of submissions made has enabled Officers to take into account the views and preferences of persons interested in the Park, or likely to be affected by proposed reallocation of funds.

5.3     Council can be satisfied that the reallocation of funds towards the provision of additional playground equipment is consistent with the views of the community.

6.0     ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1     The adoption of Option 1 will mean that Officers will continue to implement the Action Plan as adopted by Council in 2011, and develop a new carpark, associated lighting and I-Way rest station.

6.2     Since the adoption of the Plan in 2011, the need for an additional carpark and associated lighting is no longer deemed necessary given the success of the new carpark off Swansea Road.  This provides adequate off street carparking for park users.  In addition, an I-Way rest station is no longer deemed necessary, given the recent provision of a covered shelter over the community BBQ.  

6.3     The adoption of Option 2 would see the reallocation of the funding from these projects, towards additional playground equipment in Flaxmere Park.  The consultation with the community has supported this reallocation, given the popularity of the playground. 

6.4     Since the redevelopment of the playground in 2012, it has been extremely popular, and heavily used.  It is therefore starting to show signs of this heavy use, and the recent redevelopment of the Havelock North Village Green has provided a comparison point for members of the community.

6.5     The adoption of Option 2 would enable Council to upgrade the current playground with improved amenity and provide additional playground equipment.    

7.0     PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1     It is recommended that Council adopt Option 2, and authorise Officers to redirect the $315,000 identified in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 budget for Flaxmere Park on additional playground equipment as preferred by the Flaxmere community.

 

 

8.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Parks Planning and Development Manager titled Flaxmere Park Reserve Management Plan Actions dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)      That Council authorise Officers to redirect the $315,000 identified in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 budget for Flaxmere Park to enhance the existing playground and provide additional playground equipment.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)        The provision of high quality recreation facilities within our parks and open spaces.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 18/544

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Manager Strategic Finance

Brent  Chamberlain

SUBJECT:                 Hawke's Bay Airport Limited 2018/19 Statement of Intent        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

 

1.1     The purpose of this report is for the Council to receive the final Hawke’s Bay Airport limited (HBAL) 2018/19 Statement of Intent for receipt.

 

1.2     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

 

2.0     BACKGROUND

 

2.1     HBAL is a joint venture between the Crown (50%), Napier City (26%) and Hastings District (24%).

 

2.2     The Council’s share of HBAL is considered to be a Strategic Asset in Council’s Significance Land Engagement Policy.

 

2.3     HBAL is required to report to its shareholding partners every 6 months.

 

2.4     The Local Government Act requires all Council Controlled Organisations to prepare a Statement of Intent.  A draft is required to be provided by 1 March each year for comment with the final Statement of Intent to be completed by 30 June each year. Clause 3 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 outlines the Board’s responsibilities upon receiving comments from the shareholders:

 

      3)     Completion of statements of intent

                      The board must –

a)   Consider any comments on the draft statement of intent that are made to it within 2 months of 1 March by the shareholders or by any of them; and

b)   Deliver the completed statement of intent to the shareholders on or before 30 June each year.

2.5     Clause 9 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act outlines the contents of a Council Controlled Organisation’s Statement of Intent for which HBAL must comply.

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

Statement of Intent

3.1     HBAL has prepared the 2018/19 Statement of Intent which is attached as Attachment 1. 

3.2     The draft statement of intent for 2018/19 was presented to Council on the 22nd March 2018 and was received with no comment.

3.3     HBAL have now finalised their SOI with the following KPI changes:

3.4     Under “To be an employer of choice focused on the development of our people” the following activity has been added: develop a “HR strategy and supporting framework”.

3.5     Under “To improve our impact on the environment” the following has been deleted: “Conduct waste audit to establish current benchmark” and “Implement terminal recycling trial”, and these have been replaced with: “Develop an Environmental Management Plan: Ecologically sustainable development; Waste and hazardous materials management; Storm water management; Reduce our carbon footprint”.

3.6     Under Capital Expenditure $65k of the expenditure originally planned for 2019/2020 has been brought forward to 2018/2019 year.

4.0     OPTIONS

4.1     Council can receive the 2018/19 HBAL Statement of Intent.

5.0     SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1     While Council’s share in HBAL is considered a strategic asset, the issues for discussion are not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and no consultation is required.

6.0     PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

6.1     The preferred option is for the Statement of Intent to be received.

6.2     The Statement of Intent presented by HBAL satisfies all the requirements as set out in Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act and also clearly sets out the nature and scope of the HBAL activities and its performance targets.

 

 

7.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Manager Strategic Finance titled Hawke's Bay Airport Limited 2018/19 Statement of Intent be received.

B)      That the 2018/19 Statement of Intent of Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited be received.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

2018/19 Statement of Intent - Hawkes Bay Airport Ltd

EXT-10-9-2-18-93

 

 

 

 


2018/19 Statement of Intent - Hawkes Bay Airport Ltd

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 18/555

 

1.   

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Manager Strategic Finance

Brent  Chamberlain

SUBJECT:                 Hawke's Bay Museums Trust 2018/19 Statement of Intent        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is for the Council to receive the final 2018/19 Statement of Intent.

1.2     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     The Trust is a Council Controlled Organisation with the bulk of its funding provided by the Napier City and Hastings District Councils.

2.2     The Hastings District Council appointment to the Trust is Cr George Lyons who was appointed to the Trust by Council in November 2013.

2.3     The current trustees of the Hawke’s Bay Museum’s Trust are:

Dr Richard Grant (Chairman)

Councillor Faye White (NCC)

Councillor George Lyons (HDC)

Johanna Mouat

Mike Paku

2.4     Dr Grant was appointed as the Independent Chairman by the joint appointments committee (Mayors Yule and Dalton) in late 2014.

2.5     As required under the Local Government Act 2002 the Trust is to provide a draft Statement of Intent for comment by 1 March each year and a half year report within 60 days of the end of the first six months.

2.6     The objectives of the Trust amongst other things are to hold, protect and manage the regional collection for the people of Hawke’s Bay including overseeing the collection development through acquisition and disposal of collection items. The Trust Board governs on a high level strategic direction basis to ensure the objectives of the Trust are being met and have a Management Agreement with Napier City Council for the care and management of the regional collection.

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

 

Statement of Intent

3.1     The Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust has provided their finalised 2018/2019 Statement of Intent for comment in accordance with the requirements of schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002.  A copy of the Statement of Intent is included in Attachment 1.

3.2     This version is unchanged from the version presented to the Finance and Monitoring subcommittee on the 20 March 2018.

3.3     In that report Officers noted that:

“In order to achieve a balanced budget, the Statement of Intent also signals an expected increase in grant funding required from Hastings District Council to meet this increased cost. This is in the order of $132,000 additional funding from HDC in year one, increasing to $187,000 by year three.

No formal request has been received from the Hawke’s Bay Museum Trust to the Hastings District Council in this regard, and this increase in currently not included in the Council’s draft 2018-2028 LTP.  The expectation is that the Trust will make a submission to Council’s 2018-28 LTP.”

          No submission to the Councils 2018-2028 LTP was forthcoming and the amount of the grant budgeted for in 2018/19 remains at the lower 2017/18 level.

3.4     At Finance and Monitoring subcommittee on the 20 March 2018 the subcommittee resolved that:

“That the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust Draft 2018/20 Statement of Intent be received and Council notes its concerns over the increase in management fees provided for.

That Council request an independent review of the management support and collection stewardship arrangements for the Hawke’s Bay Museum Trust be undertaken, prior to any consideration of an increase in the Council’s contribution to the Hawke’s Bay Museum Trust.”

3.5     Subsequent to the 20 March 2018 meeting, the terms of reference for the independent review has been drafted and Adam Feeley of the Rationale Group has been appointed to undertake the review.

4.0     OPTIONS

4.1     Council can receive the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust draft 2018/19 Statement of Intent.

5.0     SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1     The issues for discussion are not significant in terms of the Council’s Significance Policy and Engagement and no consultation is required.

6.0     PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

6.1     The preferred options is for the Statement of Intent to be received.

6.2     The Statement of Intent complies with the requirements of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act and also clearly sets out the nature and scope of the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust activities and performance targets.

 

 

7.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)  That the report of the Manager Strategic Finance titled Hawke's Bay Museums Trust 2018/19 Statement of Intent dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)  That the 2018/19 Statement of Intent of the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust Half Year be received.

C)  That Council acknowledges that the Council’s budget allocation for 2018/19 and the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust’s Statement of Intent revenue expectations are not in alignment with Council budgeting for the lower historical requirements and that there is a review of the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust operational arrangements underway.

 

Attachments:

 

1

HBMT Statement of Intent 2018-2020 Hawkes Bay Mueseums Trust

EXT-10-11-7-18-210

 

 

 


HBMT Statement of Intent 2018-2020 Hawkes Bay Mueseums Trust

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 18/547

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                 Local Government New Zealand 2018 Annual General Meeting - Remits        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the remits which have been accepted for submission to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) 2017 to be held on 15 – 17  July 2018 and to obtain a direction from the Council on which remits to support.

1.2     This report concludes by asking Council to consider which remits they would wish to support.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     As part of the conference, all Councils were invited to submit proposed remits for the LGNZ AGM to be held on Sunday 15 July 2018. The screening committee has now assessed the remits which had been submitted and received support from at least one zone or sector group meeting, or 5 councils. The successful remits are appended to this report (Attachment 1).

2.2     In previous years, remits have been sent out as part of the business papers two weeks prior to AGM, but this year the remits have been circulated early in order to provide members sufficient time to review and discuss these remits within their councils before the AGM. 

2.3     The Council is asked to give consideration to the attached remits and decide which ones to support at the LGNZ AGM on 15 July 2018.

2.4     The remits are listed below:-

 

Remit

Proposed By

1

Drug Testing in the Community

Tasman District Council

2

HCV – Rural Roads Policy

Ruapehu District Council

3

Heritage Buildings

Whanganui District Council

4

Climate Change – Advocate to Banks

Greater Wellington Regional Council

5

Climate Change – Adaptation Fund

Christchurch City Council

6

Local Alcohol Policies

Christchurch City and Napier City Councils

7

Biofuels

Christchurch City Council

8

Walking the Talk – Single Use Plastics

Christchurch City Council

9

A Mandatory Register of Cooling Towers

Christchurch City Council

10

Copper in Brake Pads

Environment Canterbury

11

Reducing the Waste Stream

Wellington City and Christchurch City Council

12

Tyres Stewardship

Palmerston North City Council

2.5    

3.0     OPTIONS

3.1     To decide which (if any) remits to support

4.0     SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

4.1     This matter does not trigger the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

 

 

5.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled Local Government New Zealand 2018 Annual General Meeting - Remits dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)      That the Council indicate which remits to support as set out in the Attachment to this report

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

LGNZ Annual General Meeting 2018 Remits

EXT-6-02-18-341

Separate Doc

 

 

 


File Ref: 18/556

 

 

REPORT TO:             Council

MEETING DATE:       Thursday 28 June 2018

FROM:                       Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                 Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA)  Monthly Update        

 

 

1.0     SUMMARY

1.1     The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the number of requests under the local Government official Information Act (LGOIMA) 1987 received in May and June.

1.2     This issue arises from the provision of accurate reporting information to enable effective governance

1.3     The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4     The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to ensure that the Council is meeting its legislative obligations

1.5     This report concludes by recommending that the report be noted.

2.0     BACKGROUND

2.1     The LGOIMA allows people to request official information held by local government agencies. It contains rules for how such requests should be handled, and provides a right to complain to the Ombudsman in certain situations. The LGOIMA also has provisions governing the conduct of meetings.

Principle of Availability

2.2     The principle of availability underpins the whole of the LGOIMA. The Act explicitly states that:

The question whether any official information is to be made available … shall be determined, except where this Act otherwise expressly requires, in accordance with the purposes of this Act and the principle that the information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.

 

 

 

Purpose of the Act

2.3     The key purposes of the LGOIMA are to:

·    progressively increase the availability of official information held by agencies, and promote the open and public transaction of business at meetings, in order to:

o enable more effective public participation in decision making; and

o promote the accountability of members and officials;

        and so enhance respect for the law and promote good local       government; and

·    protect official information and the deliberations of local authorities to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.

2.4     City, district and regional councils, council controlled organisations and community boards are subject to LGOIMA and official information means any information held by an agency subject to the LGOIMA.

2.5     It is not limited to documentary material, and includes material held in any format such as:

·     written documents, reports, memoranda, letters, notes, emails and draft documents;

·     non-written documentary information, such as material stored on or generated by computers, including databases, video or tape recordings;

·     information which is known to an agency, but which has not yet been recorded in writing or otherwise (including knowledge of a particular matter held by an officer, employee or member of an agency in their official capacity);

·     documents and manuals which set out the policies, principles, rules or guidelines for decision making by an agency;

·     the reasons for any decisions that have been made about a person.

2.6     It does not matter where the information originated, or where it is currently located, as long as it is held by the agency. For example, the information could have been created by a third party and sent to the agency. The information could be held in the memory of an employee of the agency.

What does a LGOIMA request look like?

2.7     There is no set way in which a request must be made. A LGOIMA request is made in any case when a person asks an agency for access to specified official information. In particular:

·     a request can be made in any form and communicated by any means, including orally;

·     the requester does not need to refer to the LGOIMA; and

·     the request can be made to any person in the agency.

2.8     The Council deals with in excess of 14,000 service requests on average each month from written requests, telephone calls and face to face contact. The LGOIMA requests dealt with in this report are specific requests for information logged under formal LGOIMA procedure, which sometimes require collation of information from different sources and/or an assessment about the release of the information requested.

Key Timeframes

2.9     An agency must make a decision and communicate it to the requester ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ and no later than 20 working days after the day on which the request was received.

2.10    The agency’s primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ and without undue delay. The reference to 20 working days is not the de facto goal but the maximum unless it is extended appropriately in accordance with the Act. Failure to comply with time limit may be the subject of a complaint to the ombudsman.

2.11    The Act provides for timeframes and extensions as there is a recognition that organisations have their own work programmes and that official information requests should not unduly interfere with that programme.

3.0     CURRENT SITUATION

3.1     Council has requested that official information requests be notified via a monthly report.

 

4.0     RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA)  Monthly Update dated 28/06/2018 be received.

B)      That the LGOIMA requests received in May and June 2018 as set out in Attachment 1 (IRB-2-01-18-1299) of the report in (A) above be noted.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Cumulative Monthly Report to Council - May 2018

IRB-2-01-18-1299

 

 

 

 


Cumulative Monthly Report to Council - May 2018

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

          


TRIM File No. CG-14-1-00827

 

 

 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

Council MEETING

 

Thursday, 28 June 2018

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

 

SECTION 48, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987

 

THAT the public now be excluded from the following part of the meeting, namely:

 

23      Hastings Railway Station

 

The general subject of the matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this Resolution in relation to the matter and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this Resolution is as follows:

 

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

 

 

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND

PARTICULAR INTERESTS PROTECTED

 

 

GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF EACH RESOLUTION

 

 

 

 

23        Hastings Railway Station

Section 7 (2) (h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

Section 7 (2) (i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Commercial Sensitivity.

Section 48(1)(a)(i)

Where the Local Authority is named or specified in the First Schedule to this Act under Section 6 or 7 (except Section 7(2)(f)(i)) of this Act.