Agenda of Projects and Monitoring Meeting

31 October 2023

10.1 Waihī Beach Rock Revetment - Council Landowner Consented Coastal Protection Works

File Number: A5730344

Author: Peter Watson, Reserves and Facilities Manager

Authoriser: Cedric Crow, General Manager Infrastructure Services

Executive Summary

A request has been made by private landowners to seek Council’s approval in principle to construct a partially buried rock revetment structure within Council’s reserve at Glen Isla Place, Waihī Beach. This approach is consistent with the direction provided by the Operations & Monitoring Committee on 14 February 2017, Resolution OP1.2. for the section of houses between 41 Shaw Road and the Flat White Café.

As a result of the storm damage from cyclones earlier this year, the landowners are seeking Council landowner approval to construct the works at their own expense on Council land.

It is recommended that Council provide landowner approval for the construction of a consented coastal erosion protection structure within the Council beachfront reserve land between 9 and 12 Glen Isla Place, Waihī Beach, refer to Attachment 1.

The exact nature of the works is subject to the design and consenting process. The landowners’ preference is for a rock revetment that will be buried apart from a short section. Attachment 1 includes a series of photos that show the current state of the dune system which included rocks from the original sea wall constructed by Ohinemuri County Council.

Recommendation

1. That the Reserves & Facilities Manager’s Report dated 31 October 2023 titled ‘Waihī Beach Rock Revetment - Council Landowner Consented Coastal Protection Works’ be received.

2. That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of medium significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. That Council notes that assessment against its Coastal Erosion Response Policy indicates no need to protect Council’s reserve with a hard structure.

4. That Council, as administering body and landowner of the reserve, approves in principle to the private construction of consented coastal works on Council reserve, Lot 18 and 19 DPS 22035 Waihī Beach, subject to the conditions, including:

· A resource consent being granted by Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC);

· Consent and construction fully funded by the property owners;

· Agreement with Council on operational cost and responsibilities; and

5. That Council does not approve the private construction of a buried rock revetment structure or other consented works on the Waihī Beach reserve, Lot 18 and 19 DPS 22035.

Background

Waihī Beach Sea Wall or ‘rock revetment’ forms part of a coastal erosion protection system and was constructed in 2011. It consists of two lengths of rock revetments separated by Two Mile Creek.

East of Three Mile Creek it was originally intended to construct a buried rock revetment structure as a means of coastal erosion protection for the beachfront properties along Glen Isla Place. During the consenting process for the Waihī Beach Coastal Protection structure, (circa 2008) a decision was made to replace the buried rock revetment structure with a dune rehabilitation and enhancement scheme.

Several of the Glen Isla Place property owners objected to this change of direction on what protection measures were to be installed, however, the matter was ultimately considered before the Environment Court and a decision made by the court for the consent to include a dune rehabilitation and enhancement scheme.

The sand dune enhancement was included in the area East of Three Mile Creek sand pillow groyne, however, the majority of the introduced sand was quickly lost from the dunes through storm wave action.

The key design goals of the coastal protection system were developed based on discussions with recognised consultant experts, Council, and from consultation with tangata whenua, local community stakeholder groups and beachfront residents.

The goals included important aspects such as (note, this is not an exhaustive list):

· The rock revetment wall is to provide erosion protection to the landward assets, but not to provide protection from inundation and flooding;

· Public access to the beach to be maintained; and

· Access to be provided along Council reserve landward of the wall where possible.

Other specific goals were included to limit the location and extent of a sea wall on the frontage along approximately one kilometre of the beach.

Funding for the capital cost and maintenance of the protection system is recovered by a targeted rate.

Over the past few years, the rock revetment has been monitored and has generally performed in accordance with the design and consent requirements.

However, dune enhancement at Glen Isla Place East of Three Mile Creek, which was part of the dune enhancement system, has failed, with severe erosion occurring due to the enhancement being located within the active beach.

This has become apparent to nearby property owners who have noticed the substandard performance and engaged with Council on revised options for protection.

Currently, these property owners consider they are paying through a targeted rate for a “failed soft option” dune enhancement and recognise that funding of any alternative options would be an issue for Council.

The property owners have stated that, if Council grants permission for a hard structure to be built in the Council reserve area, then the property owners’ group are prepared to undertake the following activities:

1. Prepare and fund applications to BOPRC for a Resource Consent to cover the extent of these works.

2. Prepare and execute necessary documentation for the construction of these works.

3. Provide the financial capacity to meet the costs associated with the resource consent application and the physical construction of the works.

Council staff would continue to provide technical overview and guidance in this process to ensure Council’s interests are protected.

The finished works would need to be vested in Council and form part of the existing maintenance regime currently undertaken on the existing rock revetment and dune enhancement works each year.

As part of the vesting of these works to Council, the resource consent would need to be transferred to Council to ensure ongoing compliance is maintained and that a consistent approach is maintained with the current coastal protection works undertaken by Council.

lANDOWNER APPROVAL

The residents request that Council provide landowner approval for the construction of consented works. This approval is from Council in its capacity as landowner and does not imply that any regulatory approval will be granted. Consent for the work will be required from BOPRC and possibly Western BOP District Council.

Council land

Council owns and administers the reserve Lot 18 and 19 DPS 22035 adjacent to Glen Isla Place.

Significance and Engagement

In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy this decision is of medium significance as the decision on the coastal works will be made through the BOPRC Resource Consent process.

Engagement, Consultation and Communication

Interested/ Affected Parties	Completed/Planned Engagement/Consultation/Communication
Name of interested parties/groups	Beachfront residents between 9 and 12 Glen Isla Place support the proposal.	Planned
Tangata Whenua	Not yet consulted but would form part of the application process for a resource consent(s) by the property owners.
General Public	The BOP Regional Council consent notification status would determine the consultation process.

Assessment against the Coastal Erosion Responses Policy

BOPRC has jurisdiction to determine whether coastal structures are appropriate. As a result, WBOPDC’s Coastal Erosion Responses Policy 2017 is designed to guide decisions about Council’s own assets i.e., Council’s activities as a landowner or infrastructure provider, not as a regulator. Refer Attachment 2.

Whilst appreciating that there is some level of inconsistency with Council’s Erosion Responses Policy 2017 as this Policy relates to Council owned assets, the intention of the landowners is to give effect to what was originally sought by Council, being a rock revetment wall in front of the Isla Place properties. The rock wall was subsequently overturned in the Environment Court process and replaced with beach renourishment (sand dune) which has not performed its intended function.

Given the subject area is a very small section of the coastline covered by Council’s Coastal Permit, there is no intention to amend the policy to accommodate the recommendations above.

Council has also previously given approval in principle for the proposed rock revetment between 41 Shaw Road and the Flat White Café. The intent of this report is consistent with the early approval for the Shaw road proposal.

Council ASSETS

The policy essentially focusses on WBOPDC’s own assets and lists three approaches:

· Hold the line;

· Adaptive approach; or

· Let nature take its course.

In this location, apart from the beach and dune system and the reserve, there are no Council recreational/amenity/infrastructure assets to protect.

The outcome of the Coastal Erosion Response Policy Assessment concluded that as Council assets were limited to sand dunes and a reserve, protection of this asset could not be justified.

However, given that the original intent of Council to have a rock revetment at this location, a rock revetment being funded by the property owners would achieve this outcome.

Conclusion and Recommendation – cOASTAL pROECTION oPTIONS

When considering the options, which address the erosion issues between no. 9 to no. 12 Glen Isla Place, the most viable option for private landowners is to construct a buried backstop wall as originally intended (note part of the wall would be exposed in front of No’s , 12, 14, and 16) and its construction would result in the lowest risk profile and is understood to have the most support from benefitting adjoining property owners.

It would be located on Council land and would be maintained in a similar manner to the existing rock revetment structure. Council now has the option to agree to its construction, or not, on Council reserve.

The recommendations relate to whether Council provides approval to construct coastal protection works on Council land, subject to conditions and a Resource Consent application to the BOPRC being approved.

In granting approval, Council needs to be satisfied that the consultation on the proposal will occur through the resource consent process and BOPRC decision making. The proposal will require several consents from BOP Regional Council, which will more than likely require to be publicly notified. The consent process will also require consultation with tangata whenua who will have input to the process. At this point in time, the owners have not engaged with tangata whenua because they perceive minimal value in doing so if Council as landowner does not give its approval in principle.

Option A

Recommendation 4

That Council, as administering body and landowner of the reserve, approves in principle to the private construction of consented coastal works on Council reserve, Lot 18 and 19 DPS 22035 Waihī Beach, subject to the conditions, including:

· A resource consent being granted by Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC);

· Consent and construction fully funded by the property owners;

· Agreement with Council on operational cost and responsibilities.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings:

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Property owners along Glen Isla Place beachfront can provide protection to their individual properties.

The original sea wall project consenting was a lengthy undertaking and appealed to the Environment Court. Approving a buried sea wall risks raising all the same issues. While Council is not the consent applicant, it will have given landowner permission and therefore will be considered to support the proposal.

The property owners need certainty around the ability to construct a coastal protection structure if the consent is approved and that is why this decision from Council in its capacity as landowner is required ahead of the design and consenting process.

Tangata whenua and the community will have an interest in the proposal and may consider that Council should have consulted direct rather than via the consent process. Either way, consultation is required.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect, and contingent costs).

Capital costs are privately funded. Ongoing maintenance costs are estimated at $2,000p.a. with a ten yearly storm restoration cost estimated at $20,000 for each major storm.

Other implications and any assumptions that relate to this option.

Assuming Council grants permission to construct coastal protection works on the reserve, properties would remain essentially untouched. At the end of the works, Council would own both the consent and the consented works.

Key activities that will be managed by private property owners include:

1. Obtaining resource consent from BOPRC including consultation.

2. A signed document confirming that property owners will be fully funding both the consent process and contracting for physical works.

3. An agreement between property owners and Council regarding the operational costs and responsibilities.

4. The risk profile of this option will reduce from its current HH to MM with a significant risk of loss of beach amenity i.e., no sand visible at high tide. This is a similar social, cultural, and environmental outcome as the existing sea wall.

Option B

Recommendation 5

That Council does not approve private construction of a rock revetment extension or other consented works on the Waihī Beach reserve, Lot 125 DP35465.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings:

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Tangata whenua and the community will have an interest in the proposal and may consider that Council should have consulted direct rather than via the consent process.

Disadvantages:

Beach front owners who wish to protect their properties. The properties remain more at risk to coastal processes.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect, and contingent costs).

The dune enhancement costs will continue. The property owners will consider that these costs are contributing to a failed situation and may act against Council.

Statutory Compliance

The recommendations meet:

· Legislative requirements/legal requirements through the proposed agreement between Council and landowners and the Resource Management Act 1991 requirements.

· Current Council plans/policies/bylaws; aligns with Katikati/Waihi Beach Ward Reserve Management Plan policy 6.65.2 – Maintain rock revetment/dune and groyne structure in accordance with resource consent and

· Regional/national policies/plans. Subject to approved Coastal Permit from the BOP Regional Council

As with the Shaw Road proposal, a change to the Waihī Beach Coastal Protection Revenue and Financing Policy maybe required if the project proceeds, however it is likely that the existing targeted rate will cover any future operational costs of Council.

Funding/Budget Implications

For the buried rock revetment, it is recommended that all consent and construction costs are privately funded, and maintenance and operational costs are recovered through the existing targeted rate.

The Consent process, and if successful the construction, will be fully funded by the property owners.

Budget Funding Information

Relevant Detail

Capex: $TBC – private landowners

$2,000

Design, consents, and construct buried rock revetment wall.

Annual maintenance costs. May require a review of the Revenue and Financing Policy for the coastal works if the consent is approved.

Attachments

1. Waihī Beach - Rock Revetment Report ⇩

2. Coastal Erosion Responses Policy ⇩

Projects and Monitoring Meeting Agenda

31 October 2023

10.2 Te Puke Transport Choices

File Number: A5690834

Author: Calum McLean, Senior Transportation Engineer

Authoriser: Cedric Crow, General Manager Infrastructure Services

Executive Summary

A decision is being sought to implement the Waka Kotahi 100% funded ‘Transport Choices’ project, which aims to provide separated cycleways on Cameron Road and Boucher Avenue, Te Puke.

The cycleway design is 100% complete. The next project stage is physical works procurement and then construction. Waka Kotahi requires that the final project plans be issued by 27 October 2023 and that the project be delivered by 30 June 2025.

Engagement has been undertaken with the Te Puke community. Most respondents do not support the project however the feedback received suggests that the impact that the project will have on the road environment is misunderstood. The project will deliver multiple safety benefits that will make the roads safer for all road users.

Recommendation

1. That the Senior Transportation Engineer’s report dated 31 October 2023 titled ‘Te Puke Transport Choices’ be received.

2. That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. That the Projects and Monitoring Committee approves the implementation of the Transport Choices project on Cameron Road and Boucher Avenue, to the value of funding allocated by Waka Kotahi.

4. That the Projects and Monitoring Committee does not approve the implementation of the Transport Choices project on Cameron Road and Boucher Avenue.

Background

In August 2022 Council applied for investment from the Government’s Transport Choices package which seeks to reduce carbon emissions by constructing urban cycleways.

In November 2022, Council was provisionally granted $2.33M to design and construct separated cycleways on Cameron Road and Boucher Avenue to provide safe cycling routes between Fairhaven School, Te Puke Intermediate School, Te Puke Primary School, and Te Puke College.

Community engagement was carried out from July 2023 to September 2023. The findings are summarised below.

The detailed design of the cycleways is 100% complete. Council approval is sought to proceed to physical works procurement and construction.

The estimated cost of the construction of both cycleways is $6.75M, which includes MSQA fees and 30% contingency. If approval is granted to proceed with the project, staff will apply for more funding from Waka Kotahi. If additional investment is not forthcoming the scope of the project will be reduced to match the available budget.

Staff have discussed with Waka Kotahi whether an alternative route could be introduced as a substitute for the Cameron Road/Boucher Avenue route. Waka Kotahi staff advised that there is insufficient time available to Council to develop a design for a new route and undertake consultation and engagement with the community, prior to the 27 October 23 deadline for final project plans.

The Waka Kotahi funding cannot be used for any other activity.

A copy of the draft layout plans for the cycleways are included, refer to Attachments 2 and 3.

Significance and Engagement

In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy this decision is considered to be of low significance because it will only affect the Te Puke community and the project is not ratepayer funded.

Engagement, Consultation and Communication

Interested/Affected Parties

Completed
Engagement/Consultation/Communication

Tangata Whenua

· Has not been undertaken specifically for this project.

· Letters of support were received from both Waitaha and Tapuika iwi, supporting Council’s Walking and Cycling Action Plan for Te Puke. This project aims to implement the highest priority items in that plan.

Completed

General Public

· ‘Key stakeholder pre-engagement – face to face meetings with Te Puke Community Board, affected businesses, and schools.

· Mailbox letter drop to all properties along the proposed route including all side streets

· Te Puke township DL Flyer mailbox drop

· Media release

· Project information display and survey forms – Te Puke library

· Newspaper advertising in the Te Puke Times

· Social media posts on Council and Community Facebook pages

A total of 391 feedback submissions were received.

To the question:

‘Do you support the concept of a proposed cycleway and safety improvements along Cameron Road and Boucher Avenue?’

A green pie chart with numbers and a number

Description automatically generated

Four common themes emerged from the submissions received:

Impact of loss of on-street parking

Respondents are most concerned about the perceived loss of on-street parking. Most children attending primary or intermediate school travel to school by car. Parents are concerned that removal of on-street parking outside schools to accommodate separated cycleways will make it more difficult to drop-off and pick-up their children.

Traffic count surveys have been undertaken to accurately assess the impact that construction of the cycleways will have on on-street parking. The findings indicate that there will continue to be sufficient on-street parking if people are prepared to walk slightly further than they are used to (see table 1 below).

A table with numbers and text

Description automatically generated

Table 1: Assessment of on-street parking before and after project implementation

Insufficient demand for cycleways.

There are multiple reasons why cycling is uncommon on NZ roads:

· Too much traffic /risk of crashes / excessive speeds / poor driving

· Narrow roads / no cycle lanes / no provision for cyclists

· Lack of visibility / vehicles emerging from driveways

The Transport Choices Programme aims to address these concerns by creating infrastructure that better accommodates walking and cycling, giving people the confidence to embrace alternative modes of transport.

· Lack of road sense / don’t understand road rules /too young (children)

· Stranger danger / abduction (children)

Council’s involvement with Travel Safe provides an opportunity to improve road safety education within the community and especially the schools.

· Hills / too far to ride

· Adverse weather

These are becoming less of a barrier to cycling as new technologies emerge (e-bikes, e-scooters) and employers implement facilities (secure bike racks, changing facilities/showers) that make cycling less onerous in inclement conditions.

Money would be better spent elsewhere

Several submitters considered the project to be a waste of ratepayer’s and/or taxpayer’s money. There were suggestions that the money would be better spent on other roading activities e.g., maintenance, however, this will not be possible. Funding from the Transport Choices programme may only be spent implementing a cycle route between Cameron Road and Boucher Avenue. It may not be used on operational activities such as road maintenance or renewals. If the project does not proceed, the funding will be allocated to another Transport Choices programme elsewhere in the country.

Narrowing the road carriageway will diminish road safety

Peak traffic is observed during Kiwifruit season when there is a substantial increase in the number of trucks using Te Puke roads. Traffic speed is a concern for the community and respondents fear that narrowing the road carriageway to incorporate separate cycleways will make the road more dangerous.

A speed survey carried out on Cameron Road determined that the 85%ile operating speed on Cameron Road is 54kph. At 54kph the probability that a child would survive a collision with a car is 5%.

Research has shown that narrowing road carriageways has the effect of reducing traffic speed. Drivers slow down and drive more cautiously in response to the reduction in manoeuvrability and perceived risk of lane encroachment.

A report detailing all feedback received is included, refer to Attachment 1.

Issues and Options Assessment

Option A

That the Projects and Monitoring Committee approves the implementation of the Transport Choices project on Cameron Road and Boucher Avenue, to the value of funding allocated by Waka Kotahi.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact

on each of the four well-beings

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Advantages:

· Responds to two strategic priorities:

1. Providing resilient, well maintained, and efficient infrastructure, and

2. Responding to climate change.

· Provides safer cycling infrastructure particularly for students travelling to and from school.

· Narrowing the carriageway will help reduce traffic speeds, resulting in less crashes and improved survivability.

· Increased uptake in cycling or walking improves community health & wellbeing outcomes.

Disadvantages:

· Public opposition.

· To lessen the impact of reduced car-parking availability, it relies on uptake of walking & cycling – which is a long-term change (short term pain for long term gain).

· Potential negative impact on other Te Puke projects public consultation.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect, and contingent costs).

100% externally funded.

Operating/maintenance costs will be partly funded from Transport subsidies (no additional Council funding required).

Option B

That the Projects and Monitoring Committee does not approve the implementation of the Transport Choices project on Cameron Road/Boucher Avenue.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact

on each of the four well-beings

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Advantages

· Current levels of on-street parking are maintained.

· Complies with wishes of majority of community.

· No disruption to road users, maintains the status quo.

Disadvantages

· Health and safety benefits are not realised.

· Discourages multi-modal shift.

· Reduction in vehicle emissions is not realised.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect, and contingent costs).

No present costs, however, the implementation of essential safety upgrades (e.g., zebra crossings at schools) may require to be partly or fully funded by Council at a later date.

Statutory Compliance

The recommendation(s) meets:

· Legislative requirements/legal requirements

· Current council plans/policies/bylaws

· Regional/national policies/plans.

Funding/Budget Implications

Budget Funding Information

Relevant Detail

N/A

Project is 100% funded from Waka Kotahi Transport Choices Package.

Attachments

1. Transport Choices Survey Responses Report ⇩

2. Te Puke Cycleway - Draft General Arrangement Plan - Section 1 ⇩

3. Te Puke Cycleway - Draft General Arrangement Plan - Section 2 ⇩

Projects and Monitoring Meeting Agenda

31 October 2023

A blue rectangular object with white text

Description automatically generated

Projects and Monitoring Meeting Agenda

31 October 2023

This is an up-to-date status and forward-looking report and may supersede the comments in the Scorecard Report. Additional information and topics may be provided at the meeting.

TOPIC AND DESCRIPTION

RISK TYPE

& RISK LEVEL

One Network Maintenance Contract (ONMC)

The ONMC includes a state highway specification and a local road specification delivered under a lump sum. The contract commenced 1 October 2014 for 7 years and was extended by 2 years from 2021.

The contract delivery for some maintenance items over the past year have been adversely affected by Covid, limiting timely delivery, and on-going poor contractor performance. Several concerns have been raised on the contractors ability to meet contract deliverables and performance outcomes, there has been no improvement.

Feedback from the community has been critical for some of Council’s levels of service delivery and contractor performance.

Negotiations between WSP and Waka Kotahi have not been sufficiently resolved, and the existing Contract ceases on 31 October 2023. Council staff are in the process securing alternative contract resources to deliver network maintenance and capital delivery.

Network emergency response and cyclic maintenance activities will continue with local suppliers from 1 November 2023.

Procurement plans are currently being drawn up and will need to be endorsed by Waka Kotahi.

Timing

Financial

Resourcing

Reputation

Network Safety

Supplier Availability

Waka Kotahi

Capital Programme

The Capital programme is currently tracking well and is at various stages of design and delivery. The aim is to have a 90% spend and/or committed at year end.

Water services are tracking well against the capital programme. The same challenges remain around professional services and supplier delivery.

Parks and Reserves teams are preparing for the spring flush and increased usage of reserves and facilities.

Large infrastructure Project Contracts currently let or progressing include Prole Road Urbanisation, Omokoroa Roundabout design, Eastern water supply bore works, Elder Housing Heron Crescent in the tender process, Dave Hume Pool works, Panepane Wharf design and consultation and Te Puke Wastewater treatment Plant upgrade design.

Supplier Availability

Weather

SH2 OMOKOROA ROAD INTERIM INTERSECTION UPGRADE

Land Purchase

Two land parcels are required. Staff are in discussion the owners’ agents around details and costs.

Stormwater Discharge

The project is expected to require a stormwater discharge consent from BOP Regional Council. There is a risk from the industrial discharge affecting the consent requirements.

Property Access

The alternative Youngson Road property access is currently unresolved, and the designers have been tasked to look at feasibility of alternatives based on the affected landowners’ feedback.

Overhead Power Supply

There is a risk associated with the relocation of the existing overhead powerlines, which are conflicting with the planned earthworks, as they will require temporary relocation into private properties. PowerCo and staff are working with the landowners to resolve this.

Land Purchase

Network Utility (PowerCo)

Consents

No. 1 Road

Pavement reconstruction and widening of 1630m long section of No 1 Road between RP300 and RP1930. Physical works were originally programmed to be undertaken over two years (23/24 and 24/25) however consenting delays and a desire to minimise the impact to kiwifruit traffic will likely require that the project be delivered over three seasons as follows:

· Year 1: stormwater upgrades, RP300 – 1930

· Year 2: pavement reconstruction and widening, RP 650 – 1930

· Year 3: pavement reconstruction and widening, RP300 – 650

Commencement of physical works during 23/24 construction season is likely to be impacted with changes to the roading contract.

The risk of further pavement deterioration has been mitigated by the heavy maintenance treatments implemented earlier this year.

Supplier Availability

Service Delivery

Timing

No. 4 Road Bridge Reinstatement

In January 2023, an extreme storm event destroyed the former bridge that spanned Te Raparaoa-ā-hoe stream on No. 4 Road. A temporary Bailey bridge has been installed to restore access to road users. Investigation and evaluation of options for permanent

reinstatement of the bridge has been completed. Four options were presented to the No. 4 Road community and other key stakeholders. Community feedback will be presented to the P&M Committee at the workshop on 31 October.

To minimise the impact of works on road users, physical works will be programmed to be undertaken outside the kiwifruit packing season (August 2024 onwards).

Timing

Service Delivery

Progress on Storm damage

Several sites are in the design process. An overarching procurement plan will be developed and tendered for the storm repairs.

Further site deterioration

Weather

Katikati Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Outfall Pipeline

Council has a consent to discharge wastewater to the ocean at its Katikati WWTP. A pipe runs from the plant underneath Tauranga harbour, Matakana Island and then out to sea. The pipe has had three failures since 2018, with two of these occurring in the last 12 months. The consequence of the pipe failure is that treated effluent leaks into the harbour. This is an unconsented activity and may lead to legal action from BOP Regional Council. The discharge of treated effluent is also a culturally sensitive issue.

A condition assessment report on the recent break suggests the pipeline has less than 5 years of remaining useful life, and further failures can be expected in this time. Previous reports (2019) suggested this pipe would not fail again prior to 2050. Water services have engaged Beca to provide a cost estimate for replacement of the pipe. Water services will also be liaising with the Katikati Wastewater Advisory Group (WWAG) to discuss the issues and available options. Land discharge options are currently being investigated for potential future discharge, however, following consultation with WWAG, Water Services will be in a better position to make recommendations on the most appropriate solution.

Financial Timing

Regulation Enforcement

Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

The project budget is under severe pressure due to high construction escalation over the last couple of years. The project programme is also under pressure, discussions are ongoing with the project team to better manage that. The programme is further at risk due to the earthworks consent that is being delayed by further information requests by BOP Regional Council and discussions with iwi.

BOPRC

Rangiuru Business Park

Quayside Properties Ltd continue to progress development of the Rangiuru Business Park and associated peripheral required works. Earthworks and drainage contracts have been awarded and the Interchange and bridge works are approximately 45% complete. The associated Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade design is being progressed by Council. Council staff continue in discussions with Quayside Properties Ltd regarding the Rangiuru Financial Contributions methodology and application.

Maketu Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

The WWTP irrigation field is non-compliant due to damage to the existing irrigation system causing ponding, which is not allowed under the consent.

Council is working with GHD and BOP Regional Council on the design of a new system to rectify this issue.

BOPRC Abatement Notice

Financial timing

Drinking Water Compliance

The implementation of new legislation regarding drinking water has required Council to improve various components of the drinking water system, including its treatment.

A number of actions and projects are underway to bring the system up to standard, with a long-term strategy being implemented through the LTP.

Regulation Enforcement

Financial Timing

Elder Housing

The site at Heron Crescent, Katikati has been cleared. Four units have been demolished, and seven have been taken away and sold.

Council endorsed the initial concept design for replacement units, with conditions that were subject to a successful funding application to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Developments Affordable Housing Fund (MHUD). Council’s registration of interest to MHUD’S Affordable Housing Fund was successful, the application was approved through an expedited process.

Refurbishment of four of the units that were affected by flooding situated at Waihi Beach, were completed by 18 October. Five tenants returned into their homes on 20 October 2023.

Timing

Attachments

1. PM23-4 - Quarterly Scorecard Report Three Months Ending 30 September 2023 ⇩

Chairperson	Cr Don Thwaites
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Allan Sole
Members	Cr Tracey Coxhead Cr Richard Crawford Cr Grant Dally Mayor James Denyer Cr Murray Grainger Cr Anne Henry Cr Rodney Joyce Cr Margaret Murray-Benge Deputy Mayor John Scrimgeour Cr Andy Wichers
Quorum	Six (6)
Frequency	Quarterly