Agenda of Council Meeting

File Ref: 18/170

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 April 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 location for siting the Havelock North Booster Pump Station.

1.2 This issue arises from the need to construct a booster pump station within Havelock North to improve the distribution of potable water from Hastings into the Havelock North reticulation and reservoirs.

1.3 Once Council has made a determination on its preferred location, the next stages will be to secure any required land and easements, satisfy planning requirements, undertake detailed design and seek to procure the booster pump station, and supply and installation of the associated pipework and ancillary items.

1.4 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.

1.5 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.

1.6 This report concludes by recommending that Council determines the preferred site for location of the Booster Pump Station so that Officers can commence construction as soon as possible.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Havelock North water contamination event in August 2016 and the subsequent investigation into that incident has determined that we can no longer rely on groundwater sources being secure and immune from contamination.

2.2 The Board of Inquiry has also recommended that the secure status of all groundwater in New Zealand is revoked and that treatment including the provision of residual disinfection is implemented on all water supplies.

2.3 The Te Mata aquifer that supplies water to the Havelock North community was identified as the source of contamination that resulted in significant illness within the community. This source water is now treated to a very high standard using filtration, UV disinfection and chlorination prior to distribution.

2.4 The consent for the Brookvale bore supply expires in May 2018 and HDC has submitted an application to renew this consent while we work towards a permanent solution that replaces the Brookvale source. Abstraction from the remaining bore #3 is known to cause depletion of groundwater springs that flow into the Mangateretere Stream and there is an expectation from the Council, the community and other key stakeholders (HBRC, Ngati Kahungunu and others) that we move away from this source altogether.

2.5 The HDC Drinking Water Strategy has been substantially revised based on new information collected over the last 18 months. This information includes groundwater quantity, quality and risk assessments that support the need to optimise our safest water sources, treat all water and reconfigure the way in which the water supply is delivered to the community.

2.6 Implementing a strategic withdrawal from the Brookvale source requires the construction of a new trunk watermain from Hastings to Havelock North, construction of a booster pump station centrally within Havelock North and UV treatment, storage and pumping to be instigated at the Eastbourne Street bore field.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The new trunk watermain project has progressed to construction and this work is underway for completion at the end of 2018. This new main provides additional supply from Hastings and reduces our reliance on the Brookvale bore supply to meet existing demand.

3.2 The booster pump station (BPS) is a critical component that reinforces the delivery of water across the upper parts of Havelock North, ensures that our reservoir storage is able to be maintained and provides increased capacity at times of peak demand.

Screen Clipping

3.3 Figure 1 – Drinking Water Strategy Projects and Location

3.4 The BPS will deliver water from the Eastbourne Street bore field via the new trunk main. Currently, the Eastbourne bore field operates at elevated pressures (between 100m and 120m of head) in order to deliver water to the higher parts of Havelock North and the storage reservoirs. The installation of a pump station will allow for a pressure reduction from between 100m and 120m to between 65m and 80m. Pressure reduction is a proven means of reducing leakage, improving energy efficiency and reducing operation and maintenance costs. This pressure reduction does not increase the risk of contaminants being able to enter into the supply.

3.5 The BPS therefore needs to be connected to the new trunk watermain (as this will be the primary source of water) and it needs to be able to pump into the network where it will maximise its effectiveness.

3.6 The location for the BPS has been identified through hydraulic modelling and an options process looking at available land, network connectivity and suitability for construction. This investigation determined that a suitable site was available on Council owned land situated at 25 Karanema Drive which best met the assessment criteria.

3.7 A resource consent application and assessment of environmental effects (AEE) to construct, maintain and operate a water supply booster pump station at 25 Karanema Drive was lodged in October 2017 (Refer Attachment 1 – RMA20170422). The AEE identified a number of initial location options that had been considered and set out the rationale for recommending the property at 25 Karanema Drive as the preferred location.

Figure 2 - Location of Open Space at 25 Karanema Drive

3.8 Concept designs were developed to determine a preferred pump station layout, incoming and exiting pipe alignments, access provisions, impacts on adjoining properties and resource consent matters that would require further investigation.

3.9 Planning advice was sought in terms of requirements to obtain affected party approvals and it was suggested that those properties immediately adjoining the site would be contacted (refer Figure 3). Each resident and/or landowner was visited individually by project staff to outline the BPS proposal, answer questions and to identify any concerns raised.

3.10 At each meeting, copies of the draft resource consent, a full set of plans and the draft acoustic assessment report were presented to ensure that as much information was made available during these meetings.

3.11 The Celebration Christian Fellowship Trust has converted what was the St John’s building, into a church of worship. Through negotiations with them, it was agreed that access to the pump station could be via Napier Rd and it is intended that site access is secured through an easement across their land.

3.12 An ‘in principle’ easement and compensation agreement has been reached with the Trust and sits in abeyance awaiting a decision on the preferred site. The Trust continue to be supportive of the project.

3.13 The AEE (pages 26 & 27) sets out the information resulting from the initial consultation phase.

Figure 3 – Properties Identified for Consultation

3.14 Immediately after talking with adjoining residents, Council staff were contacted by other property owners in the immediate area of Bennelong Place that were wanting to know more about the project and were querying why they had not been notified or consulted in relation to the proposed pump station site.

3.15 Emails and a letter were subsequently received by Council from members of the public setting out a range of concerns but in particular the loss of property values, amenity and community use that would occur if the proposed site was developed into a pump station.

3.16 A meeting was requested by concerned residents about the siting of the pump station and lack of consultation. This meeting was held on 13 November 2017 at the Havelock North Community Centre to facilitate an open session where the project and rationale for site selection was presented, the rationale for seeking affected party approval was explained and members of the public expressed their objections to the project. The meeting was attended by senior Council staff, the Mayor and a number of Councillors.

3.17 There was strong opposition voiced at the meeting. In response to some of the issues raised, officers put forward a number of possible solutions however it seemed that the majority of those present were against siting the pump station at 25 Karanema Drive regardless of any solutions being presented.

3.18 It was at this meeting that an alternative was proposed by the community members to re-site the pump station to vacant land owned by Fire & Emergency NZ situated at 15 Karanema Drive on the basis that this was in an industrial zone and would be better suited to siting a pump station away from residential properties.

3.19 It was agreed at the meeting that the resource consent be put on hold and that work commence on investigating an alternative site at the Havelock North Fire Station site.

3.20 Attachment 2 (HPRM Ref: CG-14-1-00712) sets out the record of concerns that were raised during the 13 November meeting and this attachment also includes copies of the ‘Save our Park’ petition submitted on 21 December (reported to Council on 1 February 2018) and a letter received by the Mayor.

3.21 As part of investigating the alternative site at the Fire Station, 14 properties were identified as being adjacent to or potentially interested in the pump station site at the fire station (Refer Figure 4). Flyers were delivered to those properties inviting them to attend a meeting at the Fire Station on 4 April 2018 where details on the project were presented and a site walkover conducted.

3.22 Figure 4 - Adjoining Properties Notified by Flyer of BPS Project at 15 Karanema Drive

3.23 The outcome of this community meeting (attended by 2 of the 14 properties) was generally positive in terms of the Fire Station site and the potential impact it may have on residents. There was no opposition to the project from attendees however we have not had feedback from other property owners with which to gauge the general support or opposition to the pump station at this site.

3.24 With the alternative site investigation now complete, this report summarises the findings of the detailed site investigations and presents the relative similarities and differences between the two location options at 25 Karanema Drive, and the Havelock North Fire Station at 15 Karanema Drive to assist Council in determining which option they wish to pursue.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 There are two options for siting the pump station:

4.1.1 Option 1: Open Space at 25 Karanema Drive

Figure 5 – Street Front View of Open Space

4.1.2 Option 2: Industrial Land owned by Fire & Emergency NZ at 15 Karanema Drive

Figure 6 – Proposed Site 15 Karanema Drive (Fire & Emergency NZ)

4.2 The assessment of options presents a comparison between the planning, construction and operational aspects of the two locations proposed.

4.3 Noting the concerns raised by the community who have expressed opposition to the location of the pump station at 25 Karanema Drive, the assessment includes a consideration of any benefit that the land at 25 Karanema Drive offers the community in its current state, or any other potential future use.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 In terms of Council’s policy on significance, there are two aspects that need to be considered.

5.2 Firstly, 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.

5.3 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.

5.4 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.

5.5 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.

5.6 Community engagement on these projects has been via quarterly Water Updates that have set out the proposed treatment regime and the reasons for implementing treatment, chlorination and the infrastructure upgrades. The LTP process will be commencing soon and will provide further opportunities to consult on the strategy and projects being proposed.

5.7 Secondly, the decision in regard to the location of the BPS 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.

5.8 As outlined in Section 3, 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 As agreed at the meeting held on 13 November 2017, Council undertook to progress with investigations into an alternative site at 15 Karanema Drive (Fire & Emergency NZ) as suggested by the community members present.

5.10 Initial discussions with Fire & Emergency NZ and the local fire brigade has led to the development of an alternative site arrangement and assessment of the suitability of that site for the establishment of a booster pump station.

5.11 A meeting and site walkover at the Fire Station was held on 4 April 2018 for the 14 property owners and tenants invited to attend. The property owners at 43B Napier Road attended and we discussed the positioning of the proposed pipeline alignment through their property.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

6.1 The following items have been considered in preparing the 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 Each item is discussed and then summarised in tabulated form.

6.3 Land and easement acquisitions

6.3.1 Both sites require the establishment of easements for the purpose of allowing site access and for the location of pipelines to and from the booster pump station. One of the key differences between the two location options is that Council owns the land at 25 Karanema Drive, whereas the land at 15 Karanema Drive is owned by Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

6.3.2 Although Fire & Emergency has indicated that they would allow Council to secure the required land on their property for the purpose of constructing and operating a water supply pump station, meaningful negotiations for agreement, and possible mitigation measures such as parking, training areas and fire service activities, are not able to be undertaken until a clear decision is made by Council on the preferred site.

6.3.3 Negotiations to establish the required easements across the Church land as required for the open space site are well advanced, though will not be finalised unless a decision is made by Council to proceed with this location option.

6.3.4 In this respect, both options present a similar level of risk that the required land and easement agreements may not be able to be established, necessitating compulsory acquisition via the Public Works Act.

6.4 Planning requirements

6.4.1 As a network utility operator, the construction, maintenance and operation of the new trunk main and booster pump station is provided for as a permitted activity under the Hastings District Plan, provided the relevant performance standards can be met.

6.4.2 Under the Proposed District Plan (PDP), 25 Karanema Drive is zoned Open Space and forms part of the Council’s urban and ecological linkage networks to connect small green spaces around the District. The Booster Pump Station at this location would be considered a discretionary activity.

6.4.3 Section 13.1 of the PDP describes Open Spaces as follows:

The provision of easily accessible public open spaces and recreational facilities are vital for the social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing of our community. Their availability is key to ensure that a good quality of life is achieved for all members of the community, and are important for the enhancement of the environment, the character and amenity of the District, and provision of places for active and passive recreation.

6.4.4 The Open Space at 25 Karanema Drive is categorised in the PDP as OS7:

(Linkages: Urban or Ecological) Area provides for either the urban linkage: a maintained urban corridor for active transport connection and /or small green space e.g. open spaces set aside with walkways or cycleways and road verges/reserves within Hastings District Council's Parks management (typical linear or less than 0.3 hectare) or the ecological linkages that are minimally maintained that serve as biodiversity linkages and/or water margins e.g. Rural esplanades and stream corridors.

6.4.5 The proposed gross floor area, approximately 140m² of the booster pumping station is greater than the permissible GFA of 50m² in the open space zoned land. As a result this, among other minor breaches ‘triggers’ the need for a land use consent.

6.4.6 The land at 15 Karanema Drive is zoned Industrial. Provided that the performance measures of the PDP are met, the Booster Pump Station at this location would be considered a permitted activity, and therefore a land use consent may not be required if it can be demonstrated that the PDP rules can be met.

6.4.7 If the purchase of the land at 15 Karanema Drive is negotiated as a commercial arrangement a resource consent for subdivision will be required, and inclusion of rights of way easements for access and other services (power, water, telecommunications and stormwater).

6.4.8 A subdivision consent would not require notification or approval from adjoining properties.

6.4.9 If the land is acquired via the Public Works Act, no subdivision consent is necessary.

6.5 Inlet/Outlet Pipeline configuration and installation

6.5.1 The contract for the construction of the Hastings – Havelock North Water Trunk Main currently terminates at a point in Napier Road which allows for the pipeline to be extended to either of the locations under consideration. The complexities and relative costs for the pipeline alignment to and from each of the location options has been assessed.

6.5.2 The assumption has been made that the pipeline routes to and from the booster pump station for each location are practically achievable. However, the 15 Karanema Drive location option presents a higher level of complexity and a longer route, and therefore a corresponding increased level of risk to program and cost.

6.5.3 The preferred route chosen for the inlet pipeline to the 15 Karanema Drive site option is along the existing driveway at 43B Napier Road. The property owners have indicated ‘in principle’ that they would allow the pipeline to be located within this alignment.

6.5.4 There is an existing Council owned wastewater rising main in the proposed alignment, which the trunk water main would run alongside. Initial investigations have indicated that there is adequate space within the extents of the driveway, however this is not certain until completion of detailed design and service locations have been completed.

6.5.5 From a water quality and safety perspective, we will need to ensure maximum separation distances are maintained and confirm that the wastewater rising main is in good condition. If there are any doubts as to the suitability of the alignment and co-location with the sewer rising main, then an alternative and potentially more expensive alignment will be required.

6.5.6 The delivery main from the booster pump station at 15 Karanema Drive would ideally extend to, and along Karanema Dive, to connect to the existing watermain beyond the Napier Road, Karanema Drive roundabout. As there are a number of existing services along this route, it is not yet know what the impact of the existing services on the design of the main will be, this presents a level of uncertainty on cost.

6.5.7 The pipeline would need to pass through the roundabout at a relatively deep level in order to avoid conflict with the existing services. It is expected that this would provide an increased level of disruption as compared to the 25 Karanema Drive option which has a minimal length of pipeline in the road, and does not pass through the roundabout.

6.5.8 The least risk approach at 15 Karanema Drive is for the new delivery main to connect into the 375mm diameter trunk main at the front of the fire station. Modelling has confirmed that this existing watermain is at the full extent of its capacity with the introduction of the pump station and that pipe velocities will be at the upper end of the acceptable operating range.

6.5.9 For expediency, the recommendation could be to progress with connection to the 375mm main acknowledging that this will limit any future expansions of the pump station without first extending or upsizing the watermain.

6.6 Booster pump station design and site layout

6.6.1 The booster pump station’s configuration, pumps, electrical and control requirements will be the same for each site.

6.6.2 There is however a potential that the building foundation requirements at 15 Karanema Drive will be more costly due to the anticipated poor ground conditions known to exist at the Fire Station site.

6.6.3 Geotechnical investigations have been undertaken at 25 Karanema Drive so are well known however investigations at the Fire Station have been limited to a desktop assessment. Actual ground conditions here are less certain but likely to be more costly.

6.6.4 The position of the booster pump station at the Fire Station has been determined through discussions with local staff to ensure that fire service operations are not affected. Given the relative position of the building at each site relative to the road, site works for servicing, access and security at the Fire Station will be more costly.

6.7 Noise

6.7.1 Noise has been raised as a significant issue by concerned residents and is likely to remain a contentious issue. At either site, Council is required to ensure that the noise limits set out in the PDP are complied with for whichever site option is selected.

6.7.2 Both sites are required to comply with the standards for noise as set out in the Proposed District Plan. (Refer to Attachment 3 – Stantec Technical Planning Memorandum 80509840).

6.7.3 Noise from the water pumps will be constant 24 hours per day so the most relevant PDP noise limits are those setting the most restrictive levels applying during night time hours.

6.7.4 In the Open Space Zone the maximum noise level permitted from 10pm to 7am the following day is 45dB LAeq (Equivalent Continuous Level). This noise limit is not permitted to be exceeded at any point within any Residential Zone, which would include the neighbouring Bennelong Place properties as well as the neighbouring Church property.

6.7.5 An independent noise assessment (Refer Attachment 4 – PRJ17-73-0170) has been undertaken by Marshall Day Acoustics for the site at 25 Karanema Drive taking into account all pumps, electronics, fans, cooling, transformers and the building layout and features. The report has included a 2 metre high acoustic fence in the assessment.

6.7.6 The assessment has concluded that the pump station can comply with the PDP night-time noise requirements for the closest residential receivers but has also recommended possible improvements to the roller door and ceiling to further reduce noise.

6.7.7 The report also confirms that the temporary use of power generators are exempt from noise limitations however an assessment of their impact was also undertaken. As with other standby generators that Council has in operation, any generator would be housed in a waterproof and noise attenuated enclosure to further minimise any impact on neighbours.

6.7.8 There are a range of measures available to reduce the noise impacts and ensure that compliance can be demonstrated. These include the design, selection of building materials, plantings, and acoustic fencing if deemed necessary.

6.7.9 The booster pump station’s configuration, pumps, electrical and control requirements will be the same for each site, therefore the noise is expected to be the same at each location. A noise assessment for the site at 25 Karanema Drive has determined that the site will comply with the PDP requirements.

6.7.10 A key differentiator with respect to noise is the distance from the booster pump station to the nearest residential boundary. The distance to the nearest residential boundary at 25 Karanema Drive site is 9.1m, and is 21.6m at the Fire Station.

6.7.11 On this basis, it is expected that noise at the Fire Station site will also comply.

6.7.12 For both sites, the booster pump station (including pumps, generators and transformers) has been oriented and positioned as far away from residential boundaries as technically feasible without compromising adjacent properties or buildings.

6.7.13 At 15 Karanema Drive the location and orientation has been determined through discussions with local Fire Station staff based on their current and future use of the land.

6.7.14 Transformers are to be positioned away from residential properties so that the pump station building can be used to shield any noise.

6.8 Impact on Program

6.8.1 The Drinking Water Strategy set out an optimistic timeframe for completion of the new trunk main from Hastings to Havelock North and booster pump station by November 2018. This would enable supply to be delivered primarily from Hastings as opposed to the Brookvale bore and limit the use of Brookvale during peak summer demand.

6.8.2 The estimated time required to construct and commission the pump station is approximately 12 months assuming that all land purchase, easement negotiations and consents have been concluded.

6.8.3 One of the primary site selection criteria was to only consider land that was already owned by Council as this could potentially fast track the delivery of the pump station to meet Council’s objective for turning off the Brookvale supply.

6.8.4 The site at 25 Karanema Drive requires an easement agreement for access and there is an agreement in principle between the parties. It only requires sign-off if this is deemed to be the preferred site.

6.8.5 There are two affected parties at 15 Karanema Drive, Fire & Emergency NZ and the property owners at 43B Napier Road. At this stage both parties appear to be supportive of this proposal and willing to enter into negotiations.

6.8.6 Initial discussions with Fire & Emergency on the sale of land, positioning of easements and compensation have commenced. At this stage preliminary assessments have been undertaken but negotiations have not commenced.

6.8.7 This process is likely to add six months to the project timeline and we cannot guarantee that settlement will be reached however, the discussions to date have been amicable.

6.8.8 If either legal arrangement could not be concluded via direct negotiation, the alternative option for Council would be to acquire the land through the Public Works Act by compulsory acquisition. This process can take upwards of 2 years to complete and would have a significant impact on delivering the Drinking Water Strategy within the proposed timeframes and would jeopardise the Resource Consent Application at Brookvale Road.

6.9 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 unknown, nor whether such agreements are able to be established at all.

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 require 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.

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

Will be affected by land and easement negotiations (upwards of 6 months).

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 A cost comparison has been undertaken to assess the differences over the base cost for the pump station in relation to each site. This work has been undertaken by Stantec who have been working on the detailed design and site assessments for this project. (Refer to Attachment 5 – Havelock North BPS Final Location)

7.5 Their preliminary assessment has determined that the pump station at 15 Karanema Drive (Fire Station) will costs approximately $1.175M more than building the pump station at 25 Karanema Drive.

7.6 This equates to approximately $4 per household targeted rates increase.

7.7 The largest proportion of this cost is made up of the land acquisition and easements required at the Fire Station site, based initially on an independent desktop valuation assessment. (Refer Attachment 6 – Fire Station Compensation Assessment. PRJ17-73-0168)

7.8 Council officers have commenced negotiations with Fire & Emergency on the possible purchase of land for the pump station and associated facilities as well as easements that will be required to ensure that access and pipeline protection can be assured. A verbal update on these negotiations may be available at the meeting to inform Council on this issue. The outcome of the land purchase negotiations will be reported to Council at a future date.

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 described in Sections 4 & 5, 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 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 this report brings together 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 Officers do not have a preference for the siting of the proposed booster pump station and are seeking a decision from the Council.

9.2 From an engineering perspective, both sites appear to be suitable for the siting of a booster pump station based on proximity to trunk mains, the location of utility services and access arrangements.

9.3 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.

9.4 The key differentiators that would favour the site at 25 Karanema Drive are cost and the ability to deliver the project in the least possible time. 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.

9.5 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.

9.6 The difference in cost to establish at the Fire Station site is a significant increase to the $3.0M budget that has been assigned to this project. This, along with the other factors set out in 6.9 above need to be weighed against the community opposition that has been clearly expressed.

9.7 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.

9.8 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.

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

Figure 7 – S.10 LGA - Purpose of Local Government

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Water Services Manager titled “Havelock North Booster Pump Station” dated 26/04/2018 be received.

B) That Council determines the preferred pump station site as being either 15 Karanema Drive or 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	RMA20170422 Application For Proposed Pipeline & Booster Pump Station	70301#0002	Separate Doc
2	Letter to Mayor, Petition and Agenda for Public Meeting held	CG-14-1-00712	Separate Doc
3	Stantec Technical Planning Memorandum 80509840	PRJ17-73-0167	Separate Doc
4	Desktop Noise Assessment 25 Karanema Drive - Marshall Day Acoustics	PRJ17-73-0170	Separate Doc
5	Havelock North BPS Final Location	WAT-20-20-18-527	Separate Doc
6	15 Karanema Drive Booster Pump Station Compensation Assessment - The Property Group.	PRJ17-73-0168	Separate Doc

File Ref: 18/135

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 April 2018

FROM: Building Consents Projects Officer

Gerard van Veen

SUBJECT: The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 and Priority Buildings

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council and update the Council on:

i. the commencement of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (the “Act”) and implications of legislation around priority buildings; and

ii. the requirement for the Council to consider whether to proceed to community consultation;

1.2 This issue arises from commencement of the Act on 1 July 2017.

1.3 The Act includes a legislative requirement for the Council to consider and decide if:

a) there is a reasonable prospect of any thoroughfare in its district having sufficient traffic (vehicular and/or pedestrian) and any unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings^{^[1]} located on the thoroughfare to warrant prioritisation for assessment and remediation; and/or

b) there are any buildings that could collapse in an earthquake and impede transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response).

1.4 If either a) or b) in 1.3 above applies in the district, then the Council is required to carry out community consultation before deciding to identify which (if any), parts of roads, footpaths, thoroughfares, or buildings on transport routes of strategic importance will be priority.

1.5 Any public consultation must be carried out in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure under the Local Government Act 2002.

1.6 This paper serves to update the Council with focus on relevant sections of the Act regarding priority buildings to inform a decision and consultation process, should it be required.

1.7 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.

1.8 This report concludes by recommending that the Council:

i. Receive the report;

ii. Proceeds to community consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure, and approves the draft Statement of Proposal.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Act provides a new national system for managing earthquake-prone buildings and came into effect 1 July 2017. Territorial Authority earthquake-prone building policies ceased to apply from that time.

2.2 The legislation provides a system which is consistent across the country and focuses on the most vulnerable buildings in terms of people’s safety.

2.3 The legislation categorises New Zealand into three seismic risk areas and sets time frames for identifying and taking action to strengthen or remove earthquake-prone buildings.

2.4 Hastings is in the high seismic risk area, therefore the shortest legislative timeframes apply within the district.

2.5 The Act also introduces a new category of ‘priority’ buildings in high and medium seismic areas. Priority buildings are considered higher risk because of their construction, type, use or location. They may be buildings that are considered to pose a higher risk to life safety or buildings that are critical to recovery in an emergency. They must be identified and strengthened or removed in half the time available for other buildings in the same seismic risk area.

2.6 Council must identify potentially earthquake-prone buildings within its district using the Earthquake-prone building (EPB) methodology set by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Priority buildings must be identified within 2½ years (by 31 December 2019), and other buildings (to which the legislation applies) within 5 years (by 30 June 2022).

2.7 Where Council have identified a building is potentially earthquake-prone, owners are required to provide an engineering assessment within 1 year (note that an extension of time of a further 12 months may be applied for).

2.8 Following completion of the engineering assessment, buildings determined to be earthquake-prone[2] will be required to be remediated within 7½ years for priority buildings, and 15 years for other non-priority buildings.

3.0 PRIORITY BUILDINGS

3.1 Priority buildings are defined in the Act and include two broad categories:

· those that are prescribed, and include:

o Hospital buildings likely to be needed in an emergency to provide medical services or ancillary services essential for the provision of emergency medical services;

o Buildings likely to be needed in an emergency such as an emergency shelter/centre;

o Buildings used to provide emergency response services (policing, fire, ambulance, or rescue services);

o Education buildings occupied by at least 20 people (including early childhood, schools, private training institutions and tertiary institutions).

· those that are described and may be determined following community input; this category includes:

o Parts of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings that could fall in an earthquake onto certain thoroughfares which have sufficient vehicular or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritisation; and/or

o Buildings that could collapse in an earthquake and impede transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response).

Attachment 1 - Relevant Sections of the Act

4.0 PRESCRIBED BUILDINGS

4.1 All buildings which meet the criteria of prescribed buildings defined in the Act are automatically deemed as priority buildings (no community input or consultation is required).

5.0 DESCRIBED BUILDINGS

5.1 The Council has a role set out in the Act and is required to consider and decide whether to proceed with public consultation before any further buildings may be classified as priority buildings under the criteria in 5.2.

5.2 There are two categories of described building criteria that the Council may consult on under the Act:

· Parts of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings that could fall in an earthquake onto certain thoroughfares which have sufficient vehicular or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritisation; and/or

· Buildings that could collapse in an earthquake and impede transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response).

6.0 PARTS OF URM BUILDINGS THAT COULD FALL ON BUSY THOROUGHFARES

6.1 The Council must consider which thoroughfares (if any) have sufficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic, which may also have URM buildings with parts that may fall onto any part of the thoroughfare in an earthquake.

6.2 The Act allows the Council to decide if community consultation on inclusion of thoroughfares under this criteria is required. Consultation is not required if:

o there is no reasonable prospect of any thoroughfare in the district having parts of URM buildings that could fall on to roads or footpaths, or

o parts could fall, however they have insufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritising.

6.3 Council is not required to identify any specific buildings through the consultation process. Data has been collated of URM buildings and buildings of unknown construction to assist with the identification of any specific thoroughfares which may require a decision as to whether or not they are included as a priority route.

Research Information for Consideration

6.4 Officers have considered building stock construction data for the main urban shopping areas within the district (gathered from Council records) to try and identify which areas may have the prerequisites for being priority buildings under this criteria of the Act.

6.5 Areas included Clive, Flaxmere, Hastings Central Business District (CBD), and Havelock North.

6.6 The Hastings CBD is an area identified with the prerequisites for priority buildings described in the Act.

6.7 Streets identified have been confined to an area within the boundaries of Eastbourne Street to Queen Street, and from Hastings Street to Southland and Tomoana Roads.

6.8 The following information has been collated and included in this report:

Attachment 2 Hastings CBD Streets – URM/Unknown Construction – Building Totals

Attachment 3 Pedestrian Count – Hawkes Bay - 2015

Attachment 4 Traffic Count - Hastings CBD Streets - Average Daily Traffic (Year of Count)

6.9 The information gathered confirms that there are URM buildings (and older buildings of unknown construction) within the CBD area. There is also significant pedestrian and vehicular movements within the same area.

6.10 Findings from the information gathered shows that there are parts of roads, footpaths, or other thoroughfares that may warrant prioritisation.

7.0 BUILDINGS HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO IMPEDE A TRANSPORT ROUTE OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE

7.1 It is not mandatory for the Council to carry out consultation in identifying any strategic routes in the district.

The Act allows Council discretion whether to consult or not on transport routes of strategic importance that may be impeded by the collapse of any buildings (in an earthquake).

7.2 To provide the Council with information to assist in making a decision, the following emergency services were contacted by officers and feedback received:

· St John Ambulance

· New Zealand Fire Service

· Police

· Hawkes Bay District Health Board

· Civil Defence Emergency Management

· Lifelines

Those contacted confirmed Hastings district has multiple route choices available (in terms of an emergency response) therefore no routes of strategic importance were identified (by those surveyed) which are considered could be impeded if a building were to collapse in an earthquake.

7.3 In addition to the feedback received from the emergency service providers (above), east-west transport links across the city were considered essential and therefore possible transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response). Four key access routes parallel to the CBD’s main street identified as possible available routes were - Southampton, Eastbourne, Queen and St Aubyn Streets.

Further research on the building stock along these four specific routes was completed to determine whether any buildings may fit within this criteria of priority buildings.

7.4 Along the lengths of Queen and Eastbourne Streets a total of eight buildings of URM or unknown construction were identified. The same eight buildings are already captured within the criteria of 6.0 above “Parts of URM buildings that could fall on busy thoroughfares”.

7.5 Along the lengths of St Aubyn and Southampton Streets no buildings were identified which fit this criteria of priority buildings because the buildings are outside the scope of the Act or excluded under provisions of the Act e.g. timber framed building, already remediated (assessed >34% NBS or strengthened).

7.6 Findings from the information received from emergency services and additional research undertaken confirms that no transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response) are required to be identified, therefore there are no additional priority buildings within this criteria.

8.0 OPTIONS

8.1 Option 1: Proceed to community consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure on:

a) parts of a roads, footpaths, or other thoroughfares that warrant prioritisation (because they have parts of URM buildings that could fall in an earthquake and have sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic).

8.2 Option 2: Proceed to community consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure on:

b) identification of any transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response).

8.3 Option 3: Proceed to community consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure on both;

b) identification of any transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response).

8.4 Option 4: The Council could determine further information is required prior to proceeding to the Special Consultative Procedure and request further information is provided before a decision is made.

9.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

9.1 The matters outlined in this report do not trigger Council’s Significance Policy as the requirement to consider community consultation is an explicit requirement covered under the Act.

9.2 The Act requires Council to consider and determine whether to carry out public consultation on certain categories of priority buildings.

9.3 If a decision to proceed with community consultation is made, consultation is required to follow the Special Consultative Procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. Council will need to give public notice of the Statement of Proposal, explain how people can obtain a copy of the proposal and also the time period during which they can make submissions (being not less than one month from the initial notice).

9.4 The proposed submission period for identification of any priority thoroughfares and/or strategic transport routes is timed to allow the matter to be brought back to the Council for consideration in June.

9.5 As well as a general public notice being issued, submissions will be invited from key stakeholder groups or organisations. These will include: central business district building owners, local Engineering New Zealand members, and Hastings City Business Association.

9.6 Following any public consultation, consideration and hearing of any submissions, the Council will be required to make a decision whether to include:

· Any part of a public road, footpath, or thoroughfare as priority routes (because parts of URM buildings could fall on busy thoroughfares in an earthquake); and/or

· Transport routes of strategic importance (because they may be impeded by the collapse of buildings in an earthquake).

9.7 Officers would then proceed to identify any priority buildings on those thoroughfares and notify owners (notification to owners starts the timeframes for completion of assessments and any remediation if required).

10.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING OWNERS

10.1 Buildings which are identified as priority (following any consultation) may have significant financial implications for owners required to undertake engineering assessments and/or remediation within the shorter timeframes.

10.2 However financial implications are not a consideration under the Act for the Council in making any decision whether or not to proceed with community consultation.

11.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

11.1 Option 1. Proceed to community consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure on:

· parts of a roads, footpaths, or other thoroughfares that warrant prioritisation (because they have parts of URM buildings that could fall in an earthquake and have sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic).

Option 1 ensures Council will continue to meet its obligations under the Act.

Hastings CBD is an area that has been identified where there are URM buildings (and buildings of unknown construction), and there is also significant pedestrian and vehicular movements within the same area.

While the Act allows the Council to decide whether or not to proceed with community consultation, under the circumstances it could be seen as unreasonable not to do so because the prerequisites described under the Act are present within the CBD area.

Therefore it is appropriate for the Council to decide and proceed to community consultation before any final decision is made on inclusion of additional priority buildings under the criteria described in the Act with this option.

There are no additional financial implications identified for the Council other than the usual expenditure associated with administration of the legislation.

11.2 Option 2. Proceed to community consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure on:

· identification of any transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response).

The Act provides the Council discretion whether or not to proceed with community consultation on buildings that could impede a strategic transport route.

From research undertaken and information gathered on buildings or routes, there have been no transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response) that have been identified, therefore there will be no additional priority buildings within this described criteria.

The Council may still opt to carry out public consultation if it is considered necessary to provide the public an opportunity for possible feedback.

There are no additional financial implications identified for the Council other than the usual expenditure associated with administration of the legislation.

11.3 Option 3. Proceed to community consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure on both;

a) parts of a roads, footpaths, or other thoroughfares that warrant prioritisation (because they have parts of URM buildings that could fall in an earthquake and have sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic); and

b) identification of any transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response).

Option 3 is to proceed with community consultation on both categories of described criteria (Options 1 & 2) even though information gathered has not identified any transport routes of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response).

11.4 Option 4. The Council could determine further information is required prior to proceeding to the Special Consultative Procedure and request further information is provided before a decision is made.

Additional research information could be collated by officers and referred back to the Councillor Working Party before reporting back to the Council.

Note: the Act requires Council to have identified and notified all priority buildings owners by 31 December 2019, and any delay may impinge on this timeframe.

12.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

12.1 The preferred option is Option 1.

That the Council approves Option 1 and proceeds to public consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure for the reasons outlined in clause 11.1 above.

13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Building Consents Projects Officer titled “The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 and Priority Buildings” dated 26/04/2018 be received.

B) That the Council approves Option 1 as its preferred option for consultation.

C) That the Council approves for public consultation the draft “Statement of Proposal”.

D) That the Council proceeds to community consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure.

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

· Ensuring that earthquake-prone buildings are remediated within requirements of the Building Act 2004.

Attachments:

1	Relevant Sections of the Act	REG-2-9-18-3106
2	Hastings CBD Streets - URM/Unknown Construction - Building Totals	REG-2-9-18-3102
3	Pedestrian Count - Hawke's Bay - 2015	REG-2-9-18-3077
4	Traffic Count - Hastings CBD Sheets - Average Daily Traffic (Year of Count)	REG-2-9-18-3078
5	Draft Statement of Proposal	REG-2-9-18-3100

File Ref: 18/330

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 April 2018

FROM: Senior Environmental Planner Policy (Special Projects)

Anna Sanders

Environmental Policy Manager

Rowan Wallis

SUBJECT: Appointment of Commissioners for District Plan Variation 4 'Iona Residential Rezoning'

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the appointment of Commissioners for Variation 4 to the Proposed Hastings District Plan ‘Iona Residential Rezoning’.

1.2 This request arises from a Council resolution to advance the rezoning of the land at Iona (8 August 2017) under a Streamlined Planning Process (SPP). A direction was issued by the Environment Minister and a Gazette Notice issued on 28 February 2018 for the rezoning. Recommendations are to be made by the Commissioners to the Minister showing how submissions have been considered and the changes (if any) recommended to the variation. A final decision on the variation rests with the Environment Minister.

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 allow Council to carry out its regulatory functions under the Resource Management Act with a District Plan that best meets the needs of the wider Hastings District community.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending the appointment of three independent hearings commissioners; Paul Cooney (Chair), Julia Williams (Landscape Architect) and Ian Mayhew (Planner, with stormwater management experience on large scale development projects) as panel members.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Appended to this report as Attachment 1, is a copy of the direction steps issued by the Environment Minister, Hon. David Parker and the timeline. Steps 1 to 3 of the direction have been met with the variation being notified on 6 April 2018 and submissions closing on May 4. Step 4 requires that a public hearing be held, for which this decision relates. The hearing has been set down for May 30 to June 1 in accordance with the direction timeline. Step 5 of the direction requires Council to provide a written report showing how submissions have been considered and the changes (if any) recommended to the proposed planning instrument (in this case a variation to the Proposed Plan):

(a) the evaluation report under Section 32 or 32AA; and

(b) a report summarising how the persons making the recommendation have had regard to the evaluation report; and

2.2 As previously reported the decision on the variation rests with the Environment Minister, with recommendations of the hearings panel taken into consideration.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 It has been previously reported to Council about the level of background and technical investigations undertaken and community consultation undertaken in drafting the Iona variation. Through this work it has been identified that the key environmental issues are landscape and urban design and amenity, and stormwater management. Specialist input in landscape design and stormwater has been needed by officers to get the variation to notification and it is considered that specialist knowledge will be needed in considering any submissions received and making recommendations on them.

3.2 Two SPP have been issued by the Environment Minister, one to Hastings District Council and the other to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to amend its Regional Policy Statement to extend its urban boundary. While there have been two directions issued for the use of a SPP, Hastings District Council process is ahead of Bay of Plenty Regional Councils. Council officers are very aware of making sure that the process followed for rezoning land at Iona is legally robust under this new process.

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL) AND PREFERENCE

4.1 The options considered (a) appoint hearings committee made up of members of Councils Hearings Committee, with an expert to cover the specialist areas reported above or (b) appoint a panel of three independent commissioners with specialist knowledge in environmental law, planning, stormwater management and landscape and urban design.

4.2 Commissioners Paul Cooney (Lawyer and Chair), Julia Williams (Landscape Architect) and Ian Mayhew (Planner, with stormwater management experience on large scale development projects) have been identified by officers as having the appropriate experience and specialist knowledge to consider submissions on Councils behalf. All three are current holders of the Making Good Decisions certificate, with Paul Cooney having the chairing endorsement. Paul has recently acted as Chair on the Irongate development contributions hearing.

4.3 Option b is that preferred by officers, for the reasons outlined above. Also as can be seen from the attachment, there is a tight timeframe for this process, which is part and parcel of the streamlined planning process. It is considered unlikely within the tight timeline required and their current workload, that the hearings committee has the availability to consider this matter. Those persons suitably identified to make recommendations on Councils behalf are available May 30 to June 1 to determine submissions.

4.4 Budgeting provision for the appointment of Commissioners is available within the existing District Plan review budget.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The issue of significance has been considered in terms of Council’s Significance Policy and in particular the thresholds and criteria contained within this policy. The decisions required in this report do not trigger any of the thresholds and are subject to Resource Management Act 1991 submissions and decision making processes.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Senior Environmental Planner Policy (Special Projects) titled “Appointment of Commissioners for District Plan Variation 4 'Iona Residential Rezoning'” dated 26/04/2018 be received.

B) That pursuant to Section 34A(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, Mr Paul Cooney (Chair), Mr Ian Mayhew and Julia Williams are hereby appointed as Hearing Commissioners to hear and make recommendations on submissions to the Environment Minister on Variation 4 ‘Iona Residential Rezoning’ on behalf of Council.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to the performance of regulatory functions by:

i) Progressing Variation 4 – Iona Residential Rezoning for the Proposed Hastings District Plan to ensure adequate supply of residential land for the Havelock North community; and

ii) Ensuring that the timeframe set under the Streamlined Planning Process Direction is able to be met and that appropriate ongoing specialist technical input is part of the variation process.

Attachments:

Direction Timeline

ENV-9-19-4-18-314

File Ref: 18/60

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 April 2018

FROM: Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT: Revised Governance Structure

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on whether Council wishes to change the current Governance structure.

1.2 This issue arises from a proposal from the Mayor to consider changes to the governance structure to provide a more effective vehicle for Council decision making and councillor engagement with the governance process.

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 efficient and effective governance arrangements that are appropriate for effective decision making.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the revised governance and committee structure be implemented from 1 June 2018, subject to receiving a determination from the Remuneration Authority on the payment of special responsibility allowances,

1.6 To assist the following documents are attached:

i. Role description for Chairperson (Attachment 1)

ii. Role description for Deputy Mayor (Attachment 2)

iii. Role description for Portfolio Leader Band A (Attachment 3)

iv. Role description for Portfolio Leader Band B (Attachment 4)

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 A council’s committee structure is in essence a subordinate decision-making structure established under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 and more directly under the provisions of Schedule 7.

2.2 Essentially the use of a committee structure is to enable governance decision-making to occur in a timely and responsive manner so as to allow the business of the Council to operate efficiently and effectively while ensuring democracy principles are given appropriate cognisance.

2.3 The governance structures used by councils throughout New Zealand have many variations reflecting the “local” flavour and preferences of the communities the particular councils serve.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1. The current governance structure was established following the 2016 elections. It followed from a review of the then committee structure and an increase in the number of standing committees to 5 from 4.

3.2 Mayor Hazlehurst was elected Mayor following a by-election in 2017. Following a Councillor only retreat in December it became apparent that the hierarchical governance structure which had been in operation for many years was no longer working well for the following reasons:-

· Chairs bore a heavy burden of work

· Information was not shared amongst all councillors

· Some councillors were not fully engaged in the Council’s work

· The perception of an ‘in the know‘ group from within the councillor body.

These barriers were getting in the way of collective decision making.

3.2. Following a Councillor retreat in January 2018 the Mayor presented a new draft governance structure and proposed appointments to each of the portfolios. This report is a consequence of the work outlined above.

3.4 Following officer research and consultation with the Mayor a model that involves the establishment of four committees of the whole of Council was created, together with the creation of 13 Portfolios to create a flatter, more inclusive governance structure which engages all councillors. The portfolio lead model is has been adopted by a small number of Councils, including Wellington City Council. It creates an opportunity for all elected members to be involved across the broad spectrum of Council activity. Each councillor will be a portfolio lead on a discreet area of Council activity. The portfolio lead roles have been created to cover most aspects of Council activity and are aligned to the priorities set out in the Annual Plan and more importantly the Long Term Plan.

Portfolio Leader Role

3.3. Portfolio leaders will have responsibility for presenting reports to Committees and Council within their portfolio, to be the spokesperson, and ensure that the work undertaken within their portfolio is communicated to the rest of Council, the community and key stakeholders. They will work closely with the Chief Executive and Group Managers on governance issues within their portfolio to create a collaborative working environment to achieve key priorities. The 13 portfolio leader roles are as follows:

Parent Committee	Portfolio	Fields of Activity
Community Development	Ambassador for Hastings	Ambassador, Citizenship, Civic Honours, historic Commemorations, Hastings Proud, Local and community events and celebrations, Community Liaison
Community Development	Community Engagement	4.1 Marketing and Promotion, Community Engagement Events, Culture and Heritage including the Hastings City Art Gallery, Tourism
Community Development	Our Places	4.2 Opera House and Art Precinct, Housing for the elderly, Cemeteries (including physical works), Library operations, Recreation Facilities other than Parks & Reserves, Landmark Activities
Community Development	Our People	4.3 Social Development and Wellbeing programmes, Youth Liaison and Engagements, Youth Development and Employment, Positive Ageing, Community Plans
Community Development	Our Economy	Economic & Business Development Programmes, Economic Development, Growth Management and Urban Development; Hastings City Centre Development, Regional Development, Urban Design and Development (including CBD planning)
Finance and Risk	Safeguarding Our Money	Audit and Accountability Requirements, Business Units/ CCO/CCTO Ownership Overview, Monitoring and Compliance with LTP/AP and Budget Implementation, Performance Management, Taxation, Tenders and Procurement
Finance and Risk	Long Term Financial Planning	Establishing the Strategic Direction of the Council’s Business Units Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and Council Controlled Trading Organisations, Rating matters including Rating Sale proceedings, Overview of Financial Risk Management Policies required under legislation, Risk Management Strategy
Strategic Planning and Partnerships	Protecting Our Communities	4.4 District Plan, Alcohol, Animal and pest control, Building Control including the Building Act 2004 and the New Zealand Building Code, Bylaws, Parking Control, Public Health and Safety, Hearings, Miscellaneous RMA and other Regulatory Acts
Strategic Planning and Partnerships	Partnerships and uplifting our communities	4.5 District Development and Land Use Planning (high level strategy), Strategic Planning, Maori/Multi cultural relationships, Rural Communities, Regional Relationships
Works and Services	Our Water	4.6 Water, wastewater and stormwater (including public drainage and watercourses), Three Waters Infrastructure (Water, Wastewater, Stormwater), Drinking Water Safety.
Works and Services	Planning Our Assets for Tomorrow	Transport Strategy (including, public transport, cars, walking and bridges), Regional Transport, Coastal Hazards, Parks and Reserves Strategic Planning (Reserve Management Plans), Emergency Management.
Works and Services	Moving Around and Operations	CBD Upgrades physical works, Infrastructure service provision, Model Communities Project (i-way), Property Ownership, Management, Renewals, Upgrades, Developments, Roading and Transport Operations, Parks and Reserves maintenance
Works and Services	Our Environment	Sustainability Programmes and Projects, Climate Change projects and Partnerships for the delivery of and measuring sustainability, Solid Waste Operations (including refuse, landfill, recycling disposal and recycled materials), Havelock North Streams

3.4. Detailed role descriptions are set out in Attachments 3 and 4.

Committee Structure

3.4 The Committee Structure retains the matter of principle where the Council devolves a role to a committee the objective is to reinforce the wholeness of the Council’s work rather than to divest itself of responsibility. The revised committee structure gives very strong decision-making ability to the committees – allowing them to make decisions except those statute-barred, as if they were the Council themselves.

3.5 It is proposed to amend the structure from 5 to 4 standing committees as follows:-

· Community Development Committee

· Policy, Planning and Regulatory Committee

· Finance, Risk & Audit Committee

· Works & Services Committee

The fields of activity for each committee and portfolio responsibilities under the committee are shown in paragraph 3.3 above

3.5 This approach continues to provide the ability for the business of the Council to be transacted in a very efficient manner. Each portfolio lead feeds into a Committee, and each Committee has between 2 and 5 portfolio leads which report to it. Portfolio leads have no delegated responsibilities. The Chair of each standing committee will be responsible for the administrative activities of the committee and the co-ordination of the work of the portfolios within the remit of the parent committee.

3.6 The standing committees will continue to have delegated powers. Portfolio leaders will not have delegated powers.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.7 Two options are presented for consideration by the Council.

4.8 Option one is retaining status quo.

4.9 Option two is the new committee and portfolio leads as set out above.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND engagement

5.1 The issues canvassed in this report do not trigger any thresholds with the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy. The nature of the Council’s committee structure is a matter entirely at the discretion of the Council. No consultation is required.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (Including Financial Implications)

6.1 This is in essence a political decision. However, when evaluating the proposed model against the status quo the more significant differences are apparent. In particular the new model is a flatter, more inclusive governance structure which engages all councillors. The workload within each portfolio will be balanced and reviewed to ensure the quantum is fairly shared across all councilors.

6.2 The proposed model provides a structure and meeting schedule will be developed that enables timely and responsive decision-making. Portfolio leaders will have responsibility for presenting reports within their portfolio, to be the spokesperson, and ensure that the work undertaken within their portfolio is communicated to the rest of Council, the community and key stakeholders. They will work closely with the Chief Executive and Group Managers on governance issues within their portfolio to create a collaborative working environment to achieve our key priorities.

6.3 There are no major financial implications. Some modification to the elected member’s remuneration arrangements will be required. These are addressed in a separate report to this meeting. As will be the appointments of Chairs and portfolio leaders. The amended structure will be submitted to the Remuneration Authority for consideration in April. A determination is expected by the end of May 2018.

6.4 There will also be some minor changes to the reporting lines of other committees and subcommittees that will follow if the Council adopts the changes proposed in this paper. A report detailing the changes to the delegations scheme will be presented to the Council meeting on 24 May 2018 for implementation on 1 June 2018.

6.5 In adopting new structure, Council will be disestablishing the Finance & Operations, Planning and Regulatory, Economic Development and Urban Affairs, Social and Cultural Development and Works and Services and Chairman’s Committee and establishing the:

1. Community Development Committee

2. Policy, Planning and Regulatory Committee

3. Finance, Risk & Audit Committee

4. Works & Services Committee

6.6 The three existing portfolio leader roles will be modified and incorporated into the new structure.

6.7 A revised meeting schedule from the effective implementation date, of 1 June 2018 for the remainder of 2018 to support the committee structure proposed in this paper, will also be presented to the Council meeting on 24 May 2018.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTIONS AND REASONS

7.1 As stated, this is in essence a political decision. However, the preferred option, as set out of four standing committees and portfolio leadership are considered as providing a more appropriate structure for the reasons outlined earlier in the report.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

A) That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled Revised Governance Structure dated 19 April 2012 be received

B) That the Council adopt in principle the Portfolio Lead and Committee Structure contained in the report at A) above to be implemented from 1 June 2018, or the date of the Remuneration Authority on the allowance payments, whichever is the later.

With the reasons for this decision being that the it will enable the Council to give effect to the purposes of local government and to its responsibilities and obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 and any other legislation in the most effective and efficient manner.

Attachments:

1	Chairperson - Role Description	CG-01-04-18-395
2	Deputy Mayor - Role Description	CG-01-04-18-396
3	Portfolio Leader Band A	CG-01-04-18-397
4	Portfolio Leader Band B	CG-01-04-18-398

File Ref: 18/98

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 April 2018

FROM: Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT: Remuneration Authority - Committee and Governance Structure - Special Responsibility Allowances

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 As a result of a separate report on this Agenda to revise the Council’s governance structure, the purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the revised remuneration for the special responsibility allowances (Standing Committee Chairs and Portfolio Leaders). Changes to the special responsibiIity allowance requires a Council recommendation to the Remuneration Authority for approval. It is proposed that the new governance structure will become operational from 1 June 2018, or the date of the remuneration authority determination, whichever is the later.

1.2 This issue arises from the Mayor’s proposal to create a new flatter governance structure which is the subject of a report for consideration earlier on this agenda.

1.3 This report concludes by recommending (on the basis that the Council has adopted a new governance structure) that the Council recommend to the Remuneration Authority a new remuneration scale to reflect the revised governance structure.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The remuneration of the Mayor, and Councilors is set by the Remuneration Authority. The Authority allocates a pool of funding and determines the remuneration for the Mayor. The Authority sets the payments to Committee chairs, portfolio leaders, the Deputy Mayor, and Councilors after considering a proposed remuneration scale as submitted by the local authority. The Authority also determines the policy for the reimbursement of expenses, such as mileage, for elected members.

2.2 The Remuneration Authority has determined following remuneration rates for Hastings District Councillors:

Position	Special Responsibility	Current Remuneration level
Base Salary		$41,805

Deputy Mayor(1)	47% Base Salary	+$19,673
Chairpersons (5)	24% Base Salary	+$9,836
Portfolio Leader (3)	12% Base Salary	+$4,918

2.3 These rates were based on Special Responsibility rates for the deputy mayor, chairpersons and portfolio leaders based on a governance structure agreed by Council at the beginning of this triennium on 8 November 2016. These rates are subject to annual cost of living increases each July.

2.4 Currently the Remuneration Authority sets the framework for councilor remuneration. It sets mayoral remuneration and the base remuneration for councillors. It also approves the assignment of additional remuneration to councilors who have additional responsibility.

2.5 The additional remuneration is available from a “pool” that is capped at twice the base remuneration. In the case of Hastings District Council this enable a total of $83,610 to be spread across the positions of special responsibility.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 In the previous report on this Agenda, the Mayor has asked the Council to approve a structure with 4 Chairpersons and 13 Portfolio Leaders. Four of the Portfolio Leaders will also Chair the four Standing Committees.

3.2 Following advice from the Remuneration Authority, the 13 Portfolio Leader roles were evaluated and systematically scored in order to determine the “size” of each role. The roles were scored against the following factors:

· Accountability

· Work Complexity

· Relating to Others

· Expertise

· Time

3.3 As a result of this scoring exercise, the roles have been placed into 2 bands – Portfolio Leader A (Attachment 3) and Portfolio Leader B (Attachment 4) to reflect the different “sizes” of each role as follows;

Portfolio Leader A	Portfolio Leader B
Long term Financial Planning	Ambassador for Hastings
Safeguarding our Money	Community Engagement
Our Places	Our People
Our Economy	Partnerships and Uplifting our Communities
Protecting our Communities	Our Environment
Our Water	Moving Around and Operations
Planning our Assets for tomorrow

3.4 The Council at this meeting will consider a report on a revised Committee structure. The balance of this report has been prepared on the basis that the structure is adopted.

3.5 The following table shows the existing remuneration rates:-

Position	Special Responsibility	Proposed Remuneration Level
Base Salary		$41,805

Deputy Mayor (1)	47% Base Salary	+$19,760
Chairpersons (4)	7% Base Salary	+$3,000
Portfolio Leader A (7)	11% Base Salary	+$4,450
Portfolio Leader B (6)	8% Base Salary	+$3,450

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 On the basis that the Council adopts the revised Committee Structure it is recommended the above option for proposed remuneration be implemented on 1 June 2018 subject to receiving the Remuneration Authority Determination by this date.

5.0 RECOMMENDATION

A) That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled Remuneration Authority – Governance and Committee Structure – Special Responsibility Allowances dated 26 April 2018 be received.

B) That the Council recommend the following remuneration allowances, as the model for consideration by the Remuneration Authority:-

POSITION		SALARY
Deputy Mayor	1	$61,565
Chair and Portfolio Leader - band A	4	$49,255
Portfolio Leader – band A	3	$ 46,255
Portfolio Leader – band B	6	$ 45,255

C) That it be noted that the new governance structure and payment of allowances will come into effect from 1 June 2018, or the date of the remuneration authority determination, whichever is the later.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] A URM building has masonry walls that do not contain steel, timber or fibre reinforcement. URM buildings are older buildings that often have parapets, as well as verandahs, balconies, decorative ornaments, chimneys, and signs attached to their facades (front walls that face onto a street or open space).

[2] An earthquake-prone building (or part of a building) is essentially a building (or part) which has a structural performance of less than one third (<34% NBS) of that of a new building at the same site, which if it were to collapse in a moderate earthquake, would be likely to cause injury or death to people, or damage to other property.

1	Human Resources (NO PERSONAL INFORMATION) - Health and Safety - General - Health and Safety Advisor's Monthly Report to Council - January 2018	HR-03-01-18-275
2	Human Resources (NO PERSONAL INFORMATION) - Health and Safety - General - Health and Safety Advisor's Monthly Report to Council - February 2018	HR-03-01-18-276
3	Human Resources (NO PERSONAL INFORMATION) - Health and Safety - Health and Safety Manual and Policies - Health & Safety Manual - Draft HDC Health and Safety Policy 2018 (unsigned)	HR-03-02-2-18-30

1	NCC Remit on Local Alcohol Policy	CG-14-1-00713
2	Letter to Leaders re Maori Wards	CG-14-1-00714
3	Limit Fireworks for Public Displays Only	CG-14-1-00709

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings