Civic Administration Building
Phone: (06) 871 5000
Fax: (06) 871 5100
A G E N D A
Tuesday, 5 March 2019
Civic Administration Building
Lyndon Road East
Chair: Mayor Hazlehurst
Councillors Barber, Dixon, Harvey, Heaps, Kerr, Lawson, Lyons, Nixon, O’Keefe, Poulain, Redstone, Schollum, Travers and Watkins
Chief Executive – Mr N Bickle
Mrs C Hunt (Extn 5634)
HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL
Tuesday, 5 March 2019
Civic Administration Building
Lyndon Road East
9.00am (Cape Kidnappers)
A G E N D A
2. Apologies & Leave of Absence
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
Leave of Absence had previously been granted to Councillor Lyons
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 Thursday 21 February 2019.
6. Cape Kidnappers Hazard Management 5
7. Additional Business Items
8. Extraordinary Business Items
9. Recommendation to Exclude the Public from Item 10 114
File Ref: 19/107
MEETING DATE: Tuesday 5 March 2019
FROM: Group Manager: Asset Management
Risk and Corporate Services Manager
SUBJECT: Cape Kidnappers Hazard Management
1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on managing access to Cape Kidnappers Beach to protect public safety.
1.2 This issue arises from the serious injury to two Korean tourists on 23 January 2019 due to a large unexpected landslide.
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 minimise the threat to public safety by managing risk within the tolerance of the local community to serious injury or fatality to people.
1.4 This report concludes by recommending that a Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) is completed to inform long term decision-making on access to the beach and that the temporary road closure for the Clifton beach remains in place until the risk analysis is completed and understood.
2.1 Historical Access
2.2 Historically access to Clifton beach along the base of the cliffs to the Cape Kidnappers Gannet colonies has been open to anyone wishing access the area subject to the tides and condition of the beach.
2.3 In around 1933 a 13 hectare reserve, including the Saddle and Black Reef Gannet colonies, was created to provide protection for the breeding ground. This reserve is now administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC). Note; The reserve does not include the Gannet colony on the Cape Kidnappers plateau.
2.5 Early Māori occupation of Te Matau-a-Māui utilised the coastline for access to offshore and shoreline reefs, inshore fishing grounds, estuaries and wetlands – providing food sources, materials for housing, security, clothing, tools and all requirements for daily life.
2.6 The Clifton area has a long history of use by the local community and tourists as a fishery, beach walk, and for gannet visit. Commercial operations have been undertaken since 1952 by Gannet Beach Adventures.
2.7 Recent Tourist Activity
2.8 Tourist activity in the area has been growing as a result of ongoing promotion of the Hawke’s Bay region by various agencies including Hawke’s Bay Tourism, and greater promotion of the Clifton to Cape Kidnappers excursion primarily by DOC.
2.9 Indicative Cape Kidnappers reserve counter data captured by DOC show that there has been an increase in activity over the last 3 years. However, exact visitor numbers cannot be confirmed.
2.10 Based on passenger numbers provided by Gannet Beach Adventures annual visitor numbers may be in the region of 15,000 to 25,000, with an elevated level of activity in the last season.
2.11 Landslide Events
2.12 Anecdotal information indicates that landslides along this stretch of cliffs are a well-known phenomenon that occur frequently. It is also understood that landslides regularly block the beach, with consequential disruption to beach activities. This is supported by existing imagery of the cliffs which shows the remains of relatively large debris mounds on the beach (refer Stantec Report, page 19).
2.13 On the 23rd January 2019 a major landslide occurred approximately 5km along Clifton beach seriously injuring two Korean tourists. In response to this event DOC closed the Cape Kidnappers Reserve at request of the Police and placed warnings on their website to discourage tourists from attempting to visit the colony due to uncertainty over the level of risk.
2.15 Council’s response to the event was to implement a road closure notice under s342(1)(b) and the tenth schedule of the Local Government Act 1974 to close the beach to avoid any further injuries or fatalities and due to concerns that subsequent landslides might occur. In addition, Officers immediately requested support from Stantec through the current alliance agreement to provide expert geotechnical advice on the situation.
3.0 CURRENT SITUATION
3.1 Status of Beach Access
3.2 The road closure notice, on-site signage and media briefings/public information regarding the need to stay off the beach remain in place. The Cape Kidnappers Reserve remains closed by DOC (refer images below).
3.4 Legal Position
3.5 All non-authorised access along the beach toward the Cape from Clifton has been temporarily prohibited by the Council. That temporary prohibition applies to both vehicles and pedestrians. The temporary prohibition stems from the common law status of the beach as road, and relies on the powers given to the Council by s342(1)(b) and the tenth schedule of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA74).
3.6 The temporary prohibition may be enforced by the Police, but the Police have indicated that they intend to use persuasive methods of enforcing the prohibition rather than issuing tickets, undertaking prosecutions, or attempting to physically stop those intent on breaching the temporary prohibition.
3.7 The temporary prohibition is the most appropriate legal mechanism that the Council has to seek to prevent people from accessing the beach. That said, the topic is legally complex and uncertainty exists as to whether the temporary prohibition would he held (if tested in court) to be a proper exercise of the LGA74 power. That uncertainty primarily stems from the non-statutory nature of the beach’s status as road, and the untested question of whether that type of road can be the subject of the LGA74 powers in this context. Uncertainties will remain unless a court were to consider the matter.
3.8 One aspect of the temporary prohibition that is clear is that it can only be temporary. While the LGA74 and case law provide no guidance on what “temporary” means in this context, the current prohibition plainly cannot be a permanent solution. It is the view of the Council’s General Counsel that where there is a threshold in immediate sight, such as a 3 - 6 month period while further study of the cliff is undertaken, then that time could be viewed as “temporary”.
3.9 Should we not exercise prudent controls that we have the power to implement, and that causes loss to another, that may open the Council to a claim in tort. Whether prudent controls in the circumstances extends to the imposition of a temporary road closure is a question to which the answer is somewhat circular – it depends on what one views the risks to be and without the QRA we could only base that view on past experience.
3.10 In terms of our obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), if the beach is a place over which we can exercise a relevant control, and for some it is also a workplace, then it is highly likely that we owe an obligation under s36 and 37 of that HSWA. Any such obligation would extend to taking “reasonably practicable” steps to manage safety risks that other people are exposed to on a workplace over which we exercise (some) control. What step are reasonably practicable in the circumstances will, as with tortious risks, depend on the nature of the risk and without the QRA we could only base that view on past experience.
3.11 Any legal testing of the temporary power being exercised could occur in two contexts:
· As a part of a prosecution of the Council by Worksafe, or a civil claim against the Council arising from an incident on the beach; or
· A challenge to the exercise of the power by way of judicial review or as a part of any civil claim made against the Council connected to the impacts of the restriction.
3.12 Put plainly, the testing of the power would remain similar when it is exercised and when it is not, but the Council has the choice over the context and forum within which that testing might take place.
3.13 If a QRA was to indicate that permanent controls over vehicles are necessary, that power is available via the making of bylaws. Any permanent control of pedestrians would require further consideration, but may also be a subject that a bylaw should seek to address relying on the bylaw making powers in s145 of the LGA02. Any bylaws made would need a proper decision making process under the Local Government Act 2002.
3.14 It is highly unlikely that the Council would be held to be under a positive duty to create a bylaw. That would be a duty to create a power, rather than a duty to exercise a power already held. With that in mind, it is the General Counsel’s advice that in terms of the prohibition, any potential duty ends at the completion of the QRA and implementation of any longer term measures. This will be the outlying reach of the temporary powers.
3.15 Geotechnical Assessment
3.16 Geotechnical monitoring of the landslide area has been undertaken since the 23rd January event. The monitoring activities include visual observation and, drone and ground based surveying.
3.17 Council has engaged one of the Directors of Gannet Beach Adventures to support the geotechnical analysis. This has contributed valuable local knowledge regarding the nature of rockfall events that have assisted Stantec in developing their report.
3.18 As a result, Stantec have provided the attached Interim Report on Cape Kidnappers Landslide (the Stantec Report) presenting their expert opinion for Council to consider. The key points from this report are:
3.19 General Situation:
· There is no baseline risk information available to which the current landslide event can be compared.
· Landslide hazards exist along most of the beach from Clifton to Cape Kidnappers, and the risk is not constant and will be continually changing.
· Due to an increasing number of visitors using the beach the overall risk exposure is increasing. For this reason, precedence over the last 50 years or so is not a reliable argument for the injury event risk being acceptable.
· As the beach is accessed by a significant number of visitors and there is the potential for multiple injuries/fatalities in the event of landsliding, societal risk is a key consideration.
3.20 Considerations for the 23rd January Landslide event site:
· Historically, relative to other areas along the cliffs, the event site appears to have had a higher landslide hazard compared to other parts of the beach prior to the 23rd January 2019 landslide occurring. Previous landsliding had occurred in the days, weeks and years prior including a sizable landslide in 2015.
· The velocity of landslide would be described as ‘extremely rapid’ (velocity exceeding 5m/sec), as demonstrated by the injured tourists’ inability to escape and the generated impulse wave from the rockfall deposit displacing the sea.
· The immediate risk at the location of the 23rd January landslide is higher than it was as a result of the current landslide activity.
· Making an accurate assessment of future landslide behaviour is constrained by the available information on how the cliffs respond to different environmental conditions, in particular rainfall, earthquake shaking and storms with associated wave action.
3.21 Key Expert Recommendations:
· Beach access should remain closed to all beach users until a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is completed to assess the risk associated with landslide hazard for both the immediate event area and the remainder of Clifton Beach between Clifton and Cape Kidnappers.
· The QRA will need to consider; Individual risk of loss of life (person most at risk), Societal risk (potential for multiple fatalities) and taking an As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) approach.
3.22 Initial estimates for completing a robust QRA is 6 months, including time for peer review.
3.23 Risk Considerations
3.24 The following sets out key risk management considerations in accordance with the HDC Enterprise Risk Management Policy and Framework V3.4 (the HDC Risk Policy).
3.25 Risk Management Objective:
3.26 The current HDC Risk Policy sets the following objectives which are particularly relevant to the current situation:
· HDC seeks to protect personal safety in all undertakings.
· All sources of risk are assessed before undertaking any activity.
· Risks are managed within the risk criteria established for the activity.
3.27 Based on these objectives, the implementation of a road closure notice to protect safety of the public is aligned with the policy objectives, as is the expert geotechnical recommendation to undertake a QRA.
3.28 The following diagram taken from the HDC Risk Policy outlines the risk process as guidance for considering the current situation.
3.29 Risk Context: Before considering the risk associated with the use of the beach it is necessary to establish the context of the situation for decision making.
3.30 As previously stated one of the purposes of Local Government is to minimise the threat to public safety.
3.31 The advice in the Stantec Report states that the “key elements at risk from landslide hazard at the CKL [previous landslide] location are (assuming the beach is open):”
· “People – injury or loss of life, with the potential for multiple injuries/fatalities:
o General public:
§ Tourists – Cape Kidnappers Walking Track, administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC). Numbers not reliably known, around 15,000 people per annum (lower bound) and increasing.
o Guided public – eg Gannet Beach Adventures. Around 10,000 people per annum.
o Workers – employees of Gannet Beach Adventures.
· Infrastructure / property:
o Public – none when on foot but vehicles used to access the beach.
§ Property – loss of land via cliff retreat. The cliff top is owned by Cape Kidnappers Station.
§ Gannet Beach Adventures – such as tractors.
· Environment – the beach and foreshore from inundation.”
3.32 In addition to these elements at risk Council should also consider relevant stakeholders including:
· Cultural considerations relating to access the offshore and shoreline reefs and inshore fishing grounds.
· The general societal view of the level of safety in public spaces, which is becoming increasingly focused on the protection of individuals from harm.
· Tourists/visitors to the district. Most will be day visitors looking for a unique experience while in Hawke’s Bay. Generally, they are likely to have a low awareness of the risk and would generally expect easy to access and low difficulty excursions to present minimal hazards.
· The role other agencies may be able to play, including; DOC, Hawke’s Bay Tourism, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Worksafe.
· It should be noted that DOC are currently undertaking an internal review that needs to be completed before initiating a detailed risk analysis. DOC have also indicated that a detailed risk analysis would be required before a final decision could be made on the future use of the Black Reef reserve.
3.33 In terms of the physical environment it can be summarised from the Stantec Report that landslide events are part of an ongoing natural process of significant scale, and that falls are unpredictable and tend to occur with little or no warning.
3.34 Council’s mandate to act must also be considered in setting the context for a decision relating to use of the beach for access to Cape Kidnappers. The drivers for Council to be involved include; a legal obligation to act and an implied obligation to act based on community expectation for agencies to help ensure public safety. The legal position is covered in section 3.46.
3.35 When considering whether there is an implied obligation to take action, it is worth noting that there is no clear mandate for any agency (e.g. DOC, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, WorkSafe, NZTA) to take action regarding pedestrian access to the beach, and similarly the obligations on agencies to act with regard to commercial operations are also uncertain. As a result, a gap may exist that could mean no agency takes action to address the public safety concerns. Considering the area is a significant tourist attraction, leaving the situation unmanaged is unlikely to meet the expectations of the public and tourists for the level of safety expected while visiting the area. Therefore, it may be considered that the responsible position for Council is to take some form of action to protect the safety of beach users.
3.36 Risk Criteria: Risk criteria represent those tests or benchmarks for significance that are used to evaluate whether a risk can be tolerated or requires further treatment. These tests represent the organisation risk tolerance. This concept is closely related to the idea of risk appetite, which is the amount of risk an organisation wishes to seek or retain.
3.37 In this situation, as the cape landscape and the trip to the Gannet colonies can be considered an iconic natural feature and attraction, there is an appetite to resume tourist operations. However, this should only be permitted if the possibility of serious injury or fatality is within personal, societal and Council tolerance for serious injury or fatality.
3.38 In relation to rock fall Council does not have an existing criteria that could be applied. As a result, it is necessary to rely upon other industry standards. In this case the Australian Geomechanics Society Landslide Risk Management Guidelines (AGS, 2007d) suggest the upper limit for tolerable loss of life risk for the Person Most At Risk (PMAR) is better than 1 death every 10,000 years (or 1 x 10-4 per annum).
3.39 It should be noted that the amount of time people spend on the beach will affect their level of exposure to the hazards, and in turn affects the level of risk. In this case, exposure will be affected by the time taken to traverse the beach, the proximity to the foot of the cliff, and the accessibility of the beach (e.g. due to tides etc). In addition, the overall volume of people making the journey will affect the wider Societal risk.
3.40 Once a tolerable level of risk has been determined, an “As Low As Reasonably Practicable” approach should be applied to follow best practice for managing the risk as reinforced in the Stantec Report (refer page iii). This means all practical measures to lower the risk should be implemented unless the cost of the measure is disproportionate to the benefit gain.
3.41 Risk Identification: The primary risk faced is that a landslide occurs when people are present in the landing zone causing serious injury or fatality. Due to the nature of tourist operations this could potentially involve multiple people.
3.42 Should this risk materialise, there are consequential impacts for Council that include; possible legal challenge and potential reputation impact due loss of confidence amongst community/public.
3.43 However, should Council take action to protect public safety the consequential risks need to be considered. Implementing actions to protect safety will make Council responsible for the adequacy and effectiveness of those measures. As a consequence, additional liability risk may be created that Council must manage and these will require adequate resources.
3.44 Risk Assessment: As recommended in the Stantec Report a QRA is required to define the risk level with any degree of confidence. The decision to undertake a QRA is a key decision in this report.
3.45 Until a QRA is available the level of risk is unquantified. As a result it is not possible to determine whether or not the level of risk is tolerable or whether additional mitigations could be effective in reducing the risk exposure. Therefore, until the situation can be assessed it is pragmatic to take a conservative view of the risk faced by beach users.
3.46 General Legal Risks: In terms of the legal risks the Council faces, the position is clouded. If the temporary prohibition is lifted (alongside measures to warn people of the risks involved in access along the beach) and a landslide occurred causing damage to property / injury / fatalities, then the Council is unlikely to face civil liability resulting from such an incident, but it could be the subject of a prosecution by Worksafe. The lifting of the temporary prohibition without any ALARP style controls would cause the risks to be higher, but the Council would still be unlikely to face a civil liability resulting from an incident. The General Counsel would like to emphasise that this advice relates to legal liability only.
3.47 The inverse of that position is leaving the temporary prohibition in place until a QRA is completed. Under those circumstances any legal risk would stem from that position being successfully challenged as a part of or followed by a claim for damages. Such a claim would face considerable difficulties, including the need to prove that the temporary prohibition was outside the Council powers, and to prove loss caused by the temporary prohibition, as opposed to other factors such as DOC closing access to its land or the need for the claimant party to comply with any HSE obligation they themselves might have. In this scenario and HSE risks the Council might face would be fully mitigated.
4.1 In considering the options that could be taken the following actions are not considered prudent or reasonable responses to the current situation.
4.2 The options not considered further are:
· Removing the road closure notice and returning to pre-event activities without taking additional steps to make the nature of the hazards clear to beach users. This is due to the change in risk profile caused by the increasing visitor numbers, the elevated rockfall risk at the 23rd January site and the current understanding regarding the severity of injury that could result.
· Undertaking a QRA but removing the road closure notice, whether or not additional control measures are taken. This approach is not considered prudent because undertaking the QRA acknowledges that there is uncertainty whether the risks to beach users is acceptable, but removing the road closure notice implies Council is comfortable to allow the public to be exposed to unknown level of risk.
· Not undertaking a QRA and leaving the road closure notice in place. This is not possible as the s342(1)(b) road closure power only allows a temporary closure to be applied, so this cannot be a permanent solution.
· Taking action to permanently close the beach access (e.g. through a Council Bylaw), on the basis that there is insufficient information to justify this course of action.
4.3 As a result, the following two options are considered to represent the most credible responses considering the uncertainty of the situation.
4.4 Option 1: Not undertake a QRA and remove the temporary road closure notice after implementation of reasonable control measures.
4.5 Option 2: Undertake the QRA and leave the road closure notice in place until the results of the risk analysis are available.
5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT
5.1 Permanent restriction of access to the Clifton beach and Cape Kidnappers is likely to be of significance to the community. Therefore, any decision that involves ongoing restriction of access would require the opportunity for appropriate consultation before a decision is made.
5.2 However, as the decisions considered in this report relate to a temporary restriction, or for removing the existing restriction, the current decisions are not considered sufficient to trigger Council Significance and Engagement Policy.
5.3 It should be noted that Officers have been in regular contact with key members of the local community and operators to keep them informed of the situation and to understand their needs.
6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)
6.1 Option 1: Not undertake a QRA and remove the temporary road closure notice after implementation of reasonable control measures.
6.2 This option puts aside the recommendation to undertake a detailed risk analysis to inform future decision making. As a result, due to the temporary nature of the road closure notice, this notice must be lifted allowing access to the beach to resume. However, this should not be done until suitable steps are taken to ensure that visitors to the area understand the hazards and can make informed decisions.
6.3 Legal: This option presents a minor civil risk, but carries a risk of criminal prosecution by Worksafe should an incident occur.
6.4 Risks: Unless a QRA is completed it is not possible to determine whether the risk to beach users is within any of the risk criteria for tolerable levels of harm to individuals or from a societal perspective.
6.5 Considering the known ongoing nature of landslide events and the nature of possible injury, allowing use of the beach does raise the prospect that visitors will be exposed to an unreasonable risk of injury for the nature of the activity.
6.6 Therefore, this option cannot be considered consistent with Council’s responsibility to minimise threat to public safety, nor is it consistent with the adopted appetite to avoid harm to people in the HDC risk policy.
6.7 This option is not supported by expert geological advice provided in the Stantec report. Therefore, exposes Council to greater consequential risks should a harm event occur in the future.
6.8 In addition, DOC intends to leave the reserve closure in place until their internal review and a risk analysis can be completed. Therefore, removing the road closure notice may create confusion over the use of the beach, and similarly leave Council exposed to greater consequential risks should a harm event occur in the future.
6.9 Financial: The financial commitment in this option relates to the cost of installation and maintenance of additional signage and managing publication information. These costs are considered relatively minor and it is envisioned that they can be absorbed within existing operational budgets.
6.10 Conclusion: Without further information there is potentially high risk of further injuries to visitors should use of the beach access to the cape resume. Therefore, this option is considered the least conservative approach and as a result is not preferred.
6.11 Option 2: Undertake the QRA and leave the road closure notice in place until the results of the risk analysis are available.
6.12 This option implements the expert geological advice by initiating a detailed risk analysis to allow informed decisions on future use of the beach. In light of the fact that undertaking the QRA acknowledges that there is an uncertain level of risk involved, it is prudent assume that this risk is not tolerable until proven otherwise. Therefore, the road closure notice should remain in place as it is Council’s most appropriate legal mechanism to manage use of the beach.
6.13 Legal: This option presents minor civil legal risk to the Council associated with challenge to the temporary prohibition and/or a claim for damages, but mitigates the criminal risk.
6.14 Risk: This option represents a prudent approach considering the level of uncertainty over the possibility for loss of life and the complex legal environment.
6.15 Therefore, this option best aligns with Council’s responsibility to minimise threat to public safety, and is consistent with the adopted appetite to avoid harm to people in the HDC risk policy.
6.16 The main risk associated with this option is the length of time required to complete a QRA (estimate at 6 months), which impacts both the cost of the work and the consequences for a timely decision on beach use before the next summer season. To mitigate the timeliness issue providing clear direction on Council’s involvement is necessary.
6.17 Financial: The cost of temporary signage and public communications to implement the road closure notice is not considered material, and can be met by existing operational budgets.
6.18 The cost of undertaking a QRA is difficult to determine with certainty, as it is dependent on the amount of research required to build a robust model and the effort required by a peer review organisation to satisfy themselves that the developed model is sound.
6.19 Best estimates indicate that the cost for the Clifton to Cape Kidnappers QRA is likely to be in the region of $200,000 to $250,000. However, similar QRA exercises undertaken by DOC have cost in the region of $400,000 to $600,000. So Officers suggest it would be prudent to assume a final total cost of up to $300,000.
6.20 There are no current funding provisions in place to meet the QRA cost, this would need to be treated as unbudgeted expenditure.
6.21 To reduce the burden on Council, Officers are pursuing a cost sharing arrangement with other parties, primarily DOC, and propose that Council should aim to achieve the most reasonable balance of costs between parties.
6.22 Conclusion: While this option may commit Council to a reasonable direct cost, it does meet the Council’s overarching drivers for public safety and takes a conservative approach to meeting those legal obligations that could be argued to apply in this instance.
7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS
7.1 Option 2: Undertake the QRA and leave the road closure notice in place until the results of the risk analysis are available.
7.2 This option is preferred because:
7.2.1 It aligns with expert advice on the geological hazard,
7.2.2 It represents a prudent approach to ensuring any legal duties Council might have are met.
7.2.3 It aligns with the overall purpose for Local Government to minimise the threat to public safety,
7.2.4 Is consistent with Council’s approach embodied in the HDC Enterprise Risk Management Policy and Framework.
A) That the report of the Group Manager: Asset Management titled “Cape Kidnappers Hazard Management” dated 5/03/2019 be received.
B) That the Chief Executive be delegated authority to negotiate and enter into a contract with Stantec and GNS Science to undertake a Quantitative Risk Analysis of the landslide hazard posed by the cliffs from Clifton beach to Cape Kidnappers, acknowledging that this will be unbudgeted expenditure.
C) That the Chief Executive be delegated authority to negotiate and enter into cost sharing arrangements for the Quantitative Risk Analysis with other relevant stakeholders to achieve the most reasonable balance in costs for Council.
D) That the existing road closure notice under s342 and the tenth schedule of the Local Government Act 1974 is to remain in place until the results of the risk analysis are available to inform future decisions.
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) Minimising the threat to public safety.
Cape Kidnappers Landslide Interim Report FINAL Stantec 27 February 2019
TRIM File No. Error! No document variable supplied.
HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL
Tuesday, 5 March 2019
SECTION 48, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987
THAT the public now be excluded from the following part of the meeting, namely:
10 Opera House Plaza Redevelopment
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
10 Opera House Plaza Redevelopment
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).
The information in this report is commercially sensitive..
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.