|
Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting Agenda
|
31
May 2023
|
9 Business
9.1 Wastewater
Programme Business Case
File
Number: A14691336
Author: Jane
Groves, Stormwater Programme Leader
Authoriser: Nic
Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure
Purpose of the
Report
1. This report provides an update to the Wastewater
Management Review Committee (WWMRC) on the Wastewater Programme Business Case
(PBC) and seeks decisions on a number of matters.
|
Recommendations
That the Wastewater Management Review Committee:
(a) Receives the report "Wastewater Programme
Business Case".
(b) Endorses the Wastewater
Programme Business Case outputs (as summarised below and set out in
more detail in paragraph 7 and Attachment 1 of this report).
· Investment Logic Map:
confirms problem statements and define benefits from investment
· Benefits, Key
Performance Indicators and Measures: baseline and target values to be
confirmed
· Investment Objectives
· Key Service
Requirements (KSRs) and the degree of change for each (minimum, intermediate,
maximum) the programme investment is expected to deliver. These are broad,
and include growth and geographical coverage, tangata whenua partnership and
values, environmental considerations and resilience requirements.
· Scope parameters: the
scope boundaries for the investment (based on the KSRs). Only options within
the range of minimum, intermediate and maximum will be assessed.
(c) Notes that the
Wastewater Programme Business Case outputs do not include the four matters
set out in resolution (d) below as these have not been confirmed for
inclusion by the project team and require decisions by the Committee before
being included.
(d) Decides on the
following four matters proposed for inclusion in the Wastewater Programme
Business Case noting that the starter options provided to the Committee are
not exclusive and there may be further options.
i. Scope regarding Cultural Redress: A proposal to include a
Key Service Requirement (8) relating to the extent to which the impact on
iwi/hapū from existing arrangements is taken into account in wastewater
decisions.
a. Should cultural redress be included in the scope of the
Programme Business Case?
b. If so, is the proposed Minimum and Aspirational scope
wording acceptable?
ii. A new Key Service Requirement ‘seeks to
avoid direct wet weather wastewater overflows to wai receiving
environments’:
a. Should
this new Key Service Requirement be added?
b. If
so, is the proposed wording, in particular, ‘seeks to avoid’
acceptable?
iii. Inclusion
of a new Critical Success Factor in the long list criteria which would see a
given option assessed and scored against how well it meets the following:
a. (CSF17)
Must not disturb additional urupā or wāhi tapu sites.
iv.
Inclusion
of a new Critical Success Factor in the long list criteria which would see a
given option assessed and scored against how well it meets the following:
a. Strategic
fit with Hapū and Iwi Management Plans (HIMP)
(e) Approves external
engagement on the Wastewater Programme Business case subject to the
following:
i.
endorsement being given on the outputs agreed for inclusion in resolution
(b), and decisions being made on the four matters proposed for inclusion at
today’s meeting in resolution (d)
ii
the draft engagement plan being circulated to members of the Committee for
feedback; and
iii
the final engagement plan being approved by the Chairperson and the Deputy
Chairperson of the Wastewater Management Review Committee.
(f) Approves the subsequent
stages of the Wastewater Programme Business Case (noting these are indicative
dates only).
i.
Two workshops (late June/July 2023) to carry out long-list option
identification.
ii.
Assessment of confirming long-list options to occur late 2023.
iii.
Short-listing, programme road-map development and drafting of Wastewater
Programme Business Case to occur in late 2023-early 2024.
|
Background
Wastewater Programme Business Case
Overview
2. The PBC will
define a ‘preferred way forward’ for future investment in the
wastewater scheme (including the marine outfall) and broader initiatives to
improve environmental performance, strengthen partnerships with tangata whenua
and improve system resilience. Tauranga City Council (TCC) is currently working
on integrating its network and plant strategies to support integrated
investment and the PBC will both reflect and support this integration.
3. A project team
(planning/technical experts, staff and three Tangata Whenua Iwi
representatives) have been working through the initial stages of the PBC
(utilising Treasury’s Better Business Case framework). The Tangata Whenua
representatives were invited to join the project team on the basis of them also
being members of the WWMRC (and thus having a pan-scheme mandate).
4. The PBC process
involves defining key issues with the wastewater scheme, the development of
objectives and service requirements for future investment and proposes possible
options or responses which could be implemented to meet service requirements.
These responses may include both infrastructure and non-infrastructure options
(e.g. educational and policy setting/coverage changes). The PBC will provide a
‘preferred way forward’ and ‘roadmap’ for future
investment across the wastewater scheme as a whole.
5. The PBC will
guide strategic planning for Council’s wastewater activity, inform future
detailed business cases (DBCs), resource consenting process (such as that for a
new marine outfall) and key strategic documents such as the Long-Term Plan and
30 Year Infrastructure Strategy. It will also set the scene for
wastewater when Tauranga City potentially moves into a new water services
entity, demonstrating a robust decision process has been followed which is
recognised by central government. It provides an opportunity for Tauranga to
show what great looks like in terms of collaborative, long-term planning.
6. This report
follows an introductory workshop on the PBC to the WWMRC on 21 November 2022.
The purpose of this workshop was to:
i. Introduce
the PBC to the Committee as a whole (noting there are no Commission members on
the project team);
ii. Present the
‘Project Team’ PBC outputs to date; and,
iii. Consider starter
options (plus any other options identified) relating to the potential
inclusion of four matters raised by Tangata Whenua members at meetings in late
2022 - these relate to the PBC scope and two new Critical Success Factors
(CSFs) (Long List Option Assessment Criteria). These four matters are not
yet confirmed and require option assessment and decision-making by the
WWMRC.
PBC
Outputs
7. Attachment 1
includes the PBC outputs to date - those items coloured green in the attachment
are not confirmed and are reproduced in paragraph 8 below. The PBC
elements developed to date are:
· Investment Logic Map:
confirms problem statements and define benefits from investment
· Benefits, KPIs and
Measures: baseline and target values to be confirmed
· Investment Objectives
· Key Service Requirements
(KSRs) and the degree of change for each (minimum, intermediate, maximum) the
programme investment is expected to deliver. These are broad, and include
growth and geographical coverage, tangata whenua partnership and values,
environmental considerations and resilience requirements.
· Scope parameters: the
scope boundaries for the investment (based on the KSRs). Only options within
the range of minimum, intermediate and maximum will be assessed.
8. The
following four matters have been raised by Tangata Whenua project team members
during the course of the PBC workshops and require decision making at this
meeting regarding options/inclusion.
i. PBC scope regarding
Cultural Redress: A proposal to include a KSR (8) relating to the extent to
which the impact on iwi/hapū from existing arrangements is taken into
account in wastewater decisions. The WWMRC is to consider whether:
a. Cultural
redress should be included in the scope of the PBC?
b. If
so, is the proposed Minimum and Aspirational scope wording, as below,
acceptable?
ii. A new KSR ‘seeks to
avoid direct wet weather wastewater overflows to wai receiving
environments’: The WWMRC is asked to consider whether:
a.
This new KSR should be added?
b. If
so, is the proposed wording below, in particular, ‘seeks to
avoid’ acceptable?
iii. In the PBC long
list assessment criteria new CSFs which would see a given option assessed and
scored against how well it meets the following:
a. (CSF17)
Must not disturb additional urupā or wāhi tapu sites.
b. Strategic
fit with Hapū and Iwi Management Plans (HIMP)
9. These
matters and any associated implications are discussed in further detail
below. Reference is made to Attachment
1 where relevant.
DISCUSSION
PBC
Scope Regarding Cultural Redress
10. This
additional proposed KSR 8 would sit alongside a group of other KSR’s
(5-7) relating to ‘Tangata Whenua partnership and values’[1]. These KSR’s
serve, in the lead up to a new Water Services Entity operating, to lay the
foundations for a genuine, collaborative, partnership approach (that provides
for co-design, and co-governance).
11. The KSR’s are
directive, in that options identified through the long-list process will be
targeted to achieving them. As the name suggests, inclusion of a given KSR
indicates that it is an important requirement within which a change is sought
from the investment.
12. In relation to the
proposed KSR 8, the following comments are made:
a. It refers
specifically to Ngā Pōtiki, differing from the others which refer
more generally to Tangata Whenua.
b. The definition
to ‘Provide greater equity in wastewater decision-making’ does
not align well with the metric and scope descriptions which relate to: i)
mitigation of effects for cultural effects of existing wastewater
infrastructure, ii) restoring whenua/wai/taiao; and iii)
returning whenua/wai/taiao. Should the WWMRC decide to include this
KSR within the scope of the PBC, Council Project Team members recommend
renaming this KSR to more clearly reflect its purpose (refer options for
possible wording).
c. There is some
overlap with other KSR’s as follows:
- Name
- "greater equity in decision-making" overlaps with the intent
of KSR 5 "gives greater effect to tangata whenua values (enabling
active protection and informed decision-making)" and KSR 6 "enables
strong enduring partnerships with tangata whenua (enabling active protection
and informed decision-making)";
- The
level/metric - "extent to which impact on iwi/hapū from existing
arrangements [is] taken into account in wastewater decisions",
overlaps with KSR 6 and the Minimum (Critical) Standard in KSR 5 that "local
tangata whenua values and history of water assets/land understood and embedded
across Council, community";
- The
proposed 'Minimum (Critical)' requirement for iwi and hapū "impacted
by wastewater infrastructure are supported in their visions for restoration of
their whenua / wai / taiao" overlaps with KSR 5; and,
- The
degree that decision-making equity may assist service equity that is addressed
in KSR 7.
d. The 'Maximum
(Aspirational)' scope level provides for iwi and hapū of Tauranga Moana
being supported in their vision of the 'return' of their whenua/wai/taiao,
however it is beyond the scope of:
- the
WWMRC terms of reference which provides for matters such as making recommendations
to the Council as to 'enhancing the involvement of tangata whenua in sampling,
testing and monitoring'. There is nothing to suggest that it is within
the scope to provide for cultural redress or return of lands;
- the
PBC and this project (although we acknowledge this is an iwi aspiration). For
example, if Council were to return land to Ngā Pōtiki there are other
statutory requirements and processes that Council would be required to step
through, e.g under the Local Government Act 1974 and 2022 (LGA) or Reserves Act
1977 (depending on land ownership).
[To note: A recent example has been raised
in the Western Bay of Plenty district where the district council decided to
return land to iwi. It is understood however that this was not part of a
programme such as the PBC, went out for extensive public consultation and it
was likely several other statutory processes were followed].
13. Despite the above
comments, it is important to reiterate that Council Project Team members have
recognised and championed (from the earliest stages of the PBC) the need and
desire to achieve strong and enduring partnerships with tangata whenua and give
greater effect to tangata whenua values within the wastewater environment. This
intent has carried through to the inclusion of a range of KSRs that a
wastewater programme of investment could reasonably seek to deliver. As
well as this desire and intent, Council Project Team members are cognisant of
the need for decisions in the PBC process to be informed by tangata whenua,
given the context of the Council's statutory obligations under the LGA.
To date, Council staff have worked collaboratively with tangata whenua
throughout the PBC process (as reflected in KSRs 5-7) and it is important this
collaborative approach continues.
14. As
noted above, KSRs 5-7 already provide significant provision for tangata whenua
cultural values and effects on them in the process. Giving effect to Te
Tiriti partnership principles and to Te Mana o Te Wai (as per KSRs 5 and 7) are
strong obligations (and include elements of redress). Given the present
policy framework, and the potential RMA reform provisions in the new Natural
Built and Environments Act, as well as the Council’s LGA obligations, it
is important that these obligations are included in the KSRs for future
wastewater investment.
A new KSR11 ‘Seek to avoid direct
wet weather wastewater overflows to wai receiving environments’
15. The WWMRC is asked to
consider whether KSR 11 'Seek to avoid direct wet weather wastewater overflows
to wai receiving environments’ should be included as a KSR, and, if
included whether the proposed wording is acceptable. To note:
a. An
existing KSR seeks an overall reduction in wet weather overflows (KSR10: Enables a
reduction in wet weather wastewater overflows).
b. Whilst
KSR10 does not target a particular receiving environment, if there is a
reduction in wet weather wastewater overflows overall it is expected there
would also be less need for direct wet weather wastewater overflows to wai
receiving environments.
c. Use
of the word ‘avoid’ even when prefaced with ‘seeks to’,
is considered by Council Project Team members to carry with it a requirement to
keep away from something or to try not to do something. In the case of
direct wet weather wastewater overflows to wai receiving environments (the
status quo), Council Project Team members consider that seeking to avoid such
overflows would, in practice, require Council to cease use of, and not renew
consents for, the City’s only two consented direct wet weather overflow
points (located at each of the WWTPs).
Long-List Assessment Criteria (CSF17)
‘Must Not Disturb Additional Urupā or Wāhi Tapu Sites’
16. The WWMRC is asked to
consider whether (CSF17) ‘Must not disturb additional urupā or
wāhi tapu sites’ should be included. This would see a given option
assessed and scored against how well it meets this criterion. CSFs are
"the must dos/must not dos", i.e. they are intended to be directive.
17. When
considering this, the following matters are relevant:
a. There are
already requirements under Sections 6(e) and (f) of the RMA to recognise and
provide for the relationship of Tangata Whenua with wāhi tapu and for the
protection of historic heritage from inappropriate use and development. These
considerations may be strengthened through the proposed RMA reforms;
b. As currently
drafted, there is uncertainty around:
i. what is meant by 'disturb'. It is unclear whether
this includes circumstances where infrastructure is installed 'near' but not in
a wāhi tapu site or would include upgrades to existing infrastructure
– 'disturb' could be quite far reaching;
ii. what is meant by
'additional'. Does this exclude urupā or wāhi tapu sites where there
is existing infrastructure or would it capture options that include changes to
that existing infrastructure (e.g. installing larger pipes); and
iii. what areas are 'urupā or
wāhi tapu sites'. The Tauranga City Plan (Section 7C) identifies a number
of areas that are culturally significant to tangata whenua as 'Significant
Māori Areas' (SMA's), however it is not clear whether this additional
criteria will cover those areas, or include other areas identified by tangata
whenua outside of the plan;
c. the Tauranga
City Plan already provides for SMA's including objectives, policies and
activity status rules, and the proposed criteria does not relate to, and
appears to go beyond, those provisions; and
d. at
the long-list assessment stage in the process, specific sites have not all been
identified, as such it will be difficult to assess, with any certainty an
option against the proposed criteria.
Long List Assessment Criteria on
Hapū and Iwi Management Plans (HIMPs)
18. The
WWMRC are asked to consider whether HIMPs should be added as CSFs within the
Long List Option Assessment Criteria (as above, they are "the must
dos/must not dos" and are directive).
19. Whilst ‘Strategic
Alignment with relevant HIMPs’ does not form part of the formal Long List
Option Assessment Criteria this assessment is already considered alongside
‘Other attributes that need to be given regard to, and/or are of interest’
for the purposes of option analysis. The ability of a given option to meet
these ‘Other attributes’, will be assessed (as part of a SWOT[2] analysis), alongside that option’s ability to
meet the formal assessment criteria. Should a given option fully meet an
assessment criterion, it could then be rewarded (scored more highly) if it also
performs well in terms of relevant ‘Other attributes that need to be
given regard to, and/or are of interest’ (for example, Strategic
Alignment with relevant HIMPs).
20. CSFs are essential to the
successful delivery of the programme and cover a range of categories.
Strategic Fit CSFs consider strategic alignment with national-level
legislation, policy and plans, as well as regional and local strategies and
plans. Business Needs CSFs provide opportunity for to reflect the needs of the
organisation, tangata whenua and community through merit/performance-based criteria.
Further, "Strategic Fit" CSFs are assessed for strategic alignment
rather than ‘provision by provision/section by section’ compliance.
The level of analysis within a PBC is therefore indicative only, and more
detailed option development and assessment takes place at Detailed Business
Case stage.
21. When considering the
options relating to this proposal, it is relevant to note that:
a. there are 12
HIMPs in the district, spanning multiple iwi and hapū across different
parts of the region (plus potentially other HIMPs in Western Bay district given
the scope of the PBC);
b. some of the
HIMPs are dated, prepared as far back as 1995. There is also a possibility that
HIMPs may change during the course of the PBC process;
c. HIMPs are
prepared by iwi and hapū and describe resource management issues of
importance to them. However they can be broad in scope (e.g. an account of
historical matters, specific cultural values, other social/economic matters)
which may extend beyond the scope of the PBC;
d. the content of
each relevant HIMP has not been reviewed by the project team;
e. there is a risk
that:
i. it will be unclear which HIMPs need to
be assessed, these may also not be up to date and are subject to change;
ii. assessing a range of content that might not
be particularly relevant to the specific matters raised in the PBC may be
onerous and unnecessary at this stage in the process;
iii. there may be issues in interpreting the matters
in the HIMPs (given that these are iwi and hapū led documents) and
adequately assessing these;
iv. where interests and rohe may overlap there may be
inconsistencies among the HIMPs;
f. at the
resource consenting stage, the decision-maker may 'have regard to' a HIMP as
'any other matter' under section 104(1)(c) of the RMA, if an option was
assessed against a HIMP as part of the alternatives assessment, this may be
relevant. This was the original intent in including a strategic fit HIMP
assessment as an ‘attribute that needs to be given regard to, and/or are
of interest - to gain early sight and understanding of relevant HIMPs prior to
any subsequent RMA process.
g. it may be that,
if the KSR's (above) identify the key matters of importance for iwi and
hapū. If so, a detailed assessment of each HIMP is unnecessary at this
stage in the process; and,
h. HIMPs are
likely to contain a significant amount of information and direction that is
likely to extend well beyond the scope of the PBC and which Council may not
wish to be used as assessment criteria.
DECISIONS
REQUIRED
22. The WWMRC is asked to make
the following decisions at this meeting:
a. Endorsing
the PBC outputs (as set out in paragraph 7 and Attachment 1 of this report).
[For clarity this does not include those four items noted in
green within Attachment 1 which have not been confirmed for inclusion in
the PBC by the project team and for which options are proposed for WWMRC
consideration].
b. That
decisions be made regarding the four matters proposed for inclusion in
the PBC. Starter options for WWMRC consideration are noted (there may be
more options not listed).
c. On
the basis of endorsement being given for recommenation (b) and decisions being
made for recommendation (c) gives approval for external engagement to commence
on the PBC (and confirmed outputs); and,
d. Approves subsequent
stages of the PBC commencing, starting with long-list option identification in
late June 2023.
Strategic /
Statutory Context
23. The
key obligations for Council, in respect to engaging with Tangata Whenua in the
context of the PBC process, arise under:
a. the LGA;
b. future Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA) consenting processes (whereby any assessment of
alternatives and cultural effects of an activity will be assessed by the
decision-maker); and
c. the terms of
reference and scope of the WWMRC.
24. Statutory
obligations will also likely be strengthened further through the wider
legislative reforms (e.g. the RMA and 3 waters reform) and the Te Mana o Te Wai
requirements under the NPSFM 2020.
1.
25. The
PBC process itself, ‘sets the scene' for the more detailed assessment of
options and will feed into future processes under the RMA. However, it is
important that some of the statutory obligations on Council are borne in mind
in the context of this process. In particular, there are a range of LGA
obligations in relation to Tangata Whenua. For example, Section 77 of the
LGA imposes an obligation on a local authority when making a significant
decision in relation to land or a body of water:
77 Requirements
in relation to decisions
(1) A local authority must, in the course
of the decision-making process,—
a. seek to identify all reasonably practicable
options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b. assess the options in terms of their
advantages and disadvantages; and
c. if any of the options identified under
paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of
water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and
traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, wahi tapu, valued flora and
fauna, and other taonga.
26. For
Council to be able to 'take into account' those Māori-related matters,
Council must engage with the appropriate tangata whenua groups to fully
understand what that relationship is. It is only tangata whenua that can
articulate "the relationship of Māori and their culture and
traditions" with a particular site or taonga, and what impact a particular
proposed activity may have on that relationship.
27. The need
for Council to have a clear understanding of these matters is also related to
the Treaty principle of informed decision-making.
Options
Analysis
28. Staff
have proposed a range of options for each of the four matters.
These are starter options for consideration however there may be other options
identified and preferred by the WWMRC.
PBC Scope – Cultural Redress
29. The
following starter options are proposed for PBC Scope – Cultural Redress.
|
1
|
Not include in PBC: This is considered to be
more appropriately addresssed through forum outside of the PBC process as
other factors and parties external to the PBC (and wastewater scheme) must be
considered. It also repeats some matters already (and more clearly and
appropriately) included in the other KSR's.
|
|
2
|
Include as proposed in
the PBC: The KSRs set minimum and aspirational scope levels which does
not formally commit Council to actually 'return' land, for example. Council
would however need to form a clear view as to whether it does 'support' the
aspiration and if the reference to this is within scope of the PBC. There are
also some inconsistencies/uncertainties in the wording of this KSR (and its
focus on Ngā Pōtiki). It could also set a precedent for other
Council processes when engaging with local iwi and hapū;
|
|
3
|
Include with amendments:
This
could alleviate the inconsistencies/uncertainties in the current drafting and
maintain ongoing positive relationships. As above Council would need to form
a clear view as to whether it does 'support' the aspiration and whether it is
within scope of the PBC (and if it is not within scope, whether the
amendments could adequately reflect this);
 If this option is preferred the following possible amendments
could be considered.
*The Council acknowledges
that these are tangata whenua aspirations and ultimately, while progress may
be made to realise those aspirations through this project, full resolution of
these matters is beyond the scope of this business case.
|
2.
A new KSR11
Seeks to avoid direct wet weather wastewater overflows to wai receiving
environments
30. The
following starter options are proposed in relation to possible inclusion of
KSR11:
3.
|
1
|
Include KSR11 in the PBC as worded currently noting the comments
reflected in para 15 above.
|
|
2
|
Include KSR11 but with amendments to replace the
phrase ‘seeks to avoid’ with alternative wording that sets out an
intent to reduce direct wet weather overflows, without carrying with it
association with the RMA term (‘avoid’) e.g. ‘Seeks to
minimise instances of direct wet weather overflows to wai receiving
environments’. As per para 15, this intent is already subsumed
within ‘KSR10 - Enables a reduction in wet weather wastewater
overflows’, meaning KSR11 many not be required.
|
|
3
|
Not include in the PBC but utilise KSR10 to
provide an overall reduction in wet weather wastewater overflows. As per para 15, existing
KSR10:
‘Enables a reduction in wet weather wastewater overflows’) is
intended to deliver an overall reduction in wet weather wastewater overflows.
Whilst KSR10 does not target any particular receiving environment, if there
is a reduction in wet weather wastewater overflows, overall, it is expected
that there would also be less instances of direct wet weather wastewater
overflows to wai receiving environments. This option removes duplication
between KSRs and accommodates instances where direct wet weather wastewater
overflows (into wai receiving environments) are required such as those
authorised by the two consents held by Council for emergency discharges.
|
A new CSF17 ‘Must
not disturb additional urupā or wāhi tapu sites’
31. The
following starter options are proposed in relation to possible inclusion of CSF
17:
|
1
|
Include CSF17 as worded noting the uncertainties
and comments reflected in para 17 above.
|
|
2
|
Include CSF17 but with
amendments to provide more clarity on those matters noted in para 17
above and to align with the provisions in the Tauranga City Plan.
|
|
3
|
Not include in the PBC
but consider assessing options against this criterion at a later stage in the
process
It may be more
appropriate at Detailed Business Case (DBC) stage when more site-specific
investigations can occur. If this is to occur at DBC stage the wording will
need to be amended to provide more clarity on those matters noted in para 17
above and to align with the provisions in the Tauranga City Plan. There are
already existing criteria that (whilst not as specific as that proposed) are
considered to provide the appropriate level of assessment for the PBC. These
are an assessment of strategic fit with the RMA and replacement legislation,
that (currently and are expected to, respectively) include provision for
wāhi tapu sites; as well as the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act
2014.
|
Include long list
assessment Criteria on ‘Hapū and Iwi Management Plans’
32. Para
21 above, describes the risks relating to the potential addition of HIMPs as
CSFs. It is recommended that discussion focus on how some of the risks raised
could be alleviated, or how these matters may be addressed outside of the CSF
and long-list assessment stage of the process. To guide this discussion
the following options are proposed for consideration:
|
1
|
Not add HIMP’s as
CSFs within the Long List Option Assessment Criteria but consider them as
‘other attributes that need to be given regard to, and/or are of
interest’ as part of the SWOT analysis – this is the status quo.
[Inclusion as an
‘other attribute’ will see them considered at a strategic
level, and will be a means to reward options that fully meet the
criterion ‘CSF6 – Must give greater effect to tangata whenua
cultural values’. Further, given the high number and potentially
conflicting nature of HIMPs it may be more appropriate that their detailed
analysis takes place in subsequent stages of the investment process].
|
|
2
|
Add as a CSF but with
increased specificity to provide greater clarity and certainty. Increased
specifity could include noting which HIMPs apply, which parts apply, and the
inclusion of wording on specific concepts.
|
|
3
|
Add CSF with no
amendment. This assumes an assessment of strategic alignment (as will be
the case for assessment of strategic fit with all other documents referenced
in the Strategic Fit CSFs)—not a ‘provision by provision/section
by section’ assessment.
|
|
4
|
Reflect common
elements/vision/values from all relevant HIMPs and incorporate into CSF 6 – ‘Must
give greater effect to tangata whenua values’. This allows for
common themes to be specifically listed, however would require HIMPs to be
reviewed and their common elements agreed in order to confirm assessment
criteria for the PBC. As noted at para 21, potential inconsistencies
and conflict between HIMPs may create challenges in confirming common
elements.
|
Significance
33. The
Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of
matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some
instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of
importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.
34. In making this assessment,
consideration has been given to the likely impact, and consequences for:
(a) the current
and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the
district/region
(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected
by, or interested in, the decision.
(c) the capacity of the local authority to
perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.
35. In accordance with the
considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered
that the decision is of high significance as it affects the Tauranga City
wastewater scheme as a whole and looks at potential future servicing within the
Western Bay of Plenty district. The populations, stakeholders and Tangata
Whenua Iwi and Hapū groups potentially impacted by the outcomes of the PBC
and decisions to be made through this report are wide ranging and extensive.
ENGAGEMENT
36. Taking
into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of high
significance and the information contained within the Strategic / Statutory Context section above, the following comments regarding
consultation/engagement on the PBC are noted:
- The PBC project team
comprises planning/technical experts, staff and Tangata Whenua Iwi
representatives (who are also members of the WWMRC). These Iwi members
represent the cultural interests of their respective Iwi/Hapū and the
WWMRC by reporting to/back from these groups and providing cultural feedback on
PBC deliverables. The PBC, and makeup of the project team serve, in the lead up
to a new Water Services Entity operating, to lay the foundations for a genuine,
collaborative, partnership approach (that provides for co-design, and
co-governance).
- Annika Lane
(Principal, Beca) has been engaged to assist with the broader engagement
approach for the PBC. Meetings with relevant staff have been completed to
inform a draft Engagement Plan for the project - this is on hold pending inputs
from TCC Communications staff, but on completion will inform the nature of stakeholder
engagement which would commence when approval to do so is provided by the
WWMRC.
- Tangata Whenua project
team members have been asked to provide a scope of work relating to a cultural
engagement plan. This would inform the parties, nature of, and timing for
additional engagement with relevant Iwi and Hapū both within Tauranga City
and Western BOP.
Next Steps
37. On
the basis of the WWMRC endorsing the PBC outputs, making decisions on the
matters raised by Tangata Whenua project members and giving approval for
external engagement/subsequent stages of the PBC to commence, the following is
proposed:
a. Two workshops (est.
June/July 2023) to carry out long-list option identification - both
infrastructure and non-infrastructure options that can potentially meet the
investment objectives and deliver the KSRs. To assist in this task, the project
team will be provided with a starter set of long-list options for discussion
and will be asked to consider alternative/additional options for tabling at the
workshop.
b. As per the programme
(last slide Attachment 1), the assessment of confirmed long-list options
will not occur until late 2023, enabling any required investigations to be
completed (these will inform the assessment process). Short-listing, programme
road-map development and drafting of the PBC will then occur over subsquent
months concluding in late 2023/early 2024. Given the volume of material to be
covered, complexity, rate of progress and feedback/input from stakeholder
engagement, programme timing and completion of the PBC is indicative only.
c. Continue to link with
other TCC initiatives to maximise alignment and leverage any mutually required
activities and effort (e.g. the Sub-Regional Wastewater Study ‘Our Water
Futures’).
Attachments
1. 2023
May 31 Wastewater Management Review Committee - Wastewater Programme Business
Case Attachment 1 PDF (A14691634) - A14691639 ⇩ 
|
Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting Agenda
|
31
May 2023
|
9.2 Wastewater
Management Review Committee Activity Report
File
Number: A14715590
Author: Jim
Summers, Consents Officer
Authoriser: Nic
Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure
Purpose of the Report
1. To provide information
to the Wastewater Management Review Committee on the status of wastewater
network and associated projects.
|
Recommendations
That the Wastewater
Management Review Committee:
(a) Receives the report "Wastewater
Management Review Committee Activity Report".
|
discussion
RC62878 – Te Maunga Outfall Discharge Consent
2. All required sampling
within consent limits. There was no discharge recorded for 27-28 September
2022, 8-9 November 2022, 6-7 December 2022 and the 28 Feb 2023 due to the
outfall being offline for relining works between the end of the new landward
pipeline and the beach manhole.
RC62882, RC62883,
RC62885 – Overflow Emergency Discharge (Chapel Street & Te Maunga)
3. Seepage into the harbour
is being measured monthly. All results have been within consent limits with no
significant changes since desludging began.
4. Chapel Street WWTP has
had two discharges of treated wastewater to the harbour in 2023 which are
related to heavy rainfall. The first overflow in March was for a period of
approximately 30 minutes a peak flows exceeded the plants ability to discharge
to the Te Maunga pipeline. The discharge was not UV treated due to a software
failure. The fault was due to emergency generators tripping the safety
mechanisms on the UV plant. This has since been rectified and the UV plant is
operational.
5. The second discharge
occurred in May 2023 due to heavy rainfall over a two-hour period. Again peak
flows exceeded the plants ability to discharge to the Te Maunga Pipeline and
this excess was discharged to the harbour. This continued for approximately 90
minutes. The UV plant was operational the length of the discharge.
6. No emergency discharges
were recorded at Te Maunga WWTP.
Wastewater Overflows
7. Since the previous
reporting to the committee in August 2022, there have been 112 blockages within
TCC’s wastewater network notified to Council, 81 did not leave the
network or were contained on land, 12 were contained within the stormwater
network and 19 potentially made a receiving environment. These were all
notified to BoPRC, Toi Te Ora and local hapu/iwi RMA reps. Water quality
sampling was undertaken, and warning signage placed in the relevant areas until
results indicated no further impacts on water quality.
RC62722 & RC62723
- Te Maunga & Chapel Street Odour
8. No odour complaints
received for Te Maunga or Chapel Street since the last WWMRC meeting.
Inflow and
Infiltration (I&I)
9. When stormwater and
groundwater enters the wastewater network this can provide a number of issues
to the functionality of the wastewater network. The effects are wide ranging
but mainly reduce the capacity within the wastewater network from unwanted
inputs.
10. TCC’s engineer will provide
an update on what I&I is. What TCC’s strategy is, and what the next
steps are.
Desludging Pond 1
11. The contractor has removed
approximately 2700 dry tonnes of sludge from Pond 1 since the start of the
desludging.
12. Initial
removal was slow during set up but in October 2022 with 405 dry tonnes removed.
At the current rate, the project remains on track to remove nearly 7,000 dry tonnes
before the consent for disposal to the closed landfill expires at the end of
March 2024. The contractor is expected to move to a 24-hour operation in the
coming weeks to further increase their production rate.
13. Sludge samples are being taken every
fortnight and tested for asbestos. All results are under Worksafe guidelines.
Bioreactor Two
14. Construction of the internal grid
piles is progressing; 200 piles have been advanced out of a total of 3007.
15. Based on progress so far the ground
improvement works should be completed by December 2023.
16. The above ground works are
scheduled to commence in January 2023 and take approximately 15 months to
complete.
Landward Outfall
17. The Landward outfall project is now
completed. 1700m of new 1200mm diameter pipeline has been installed.
18. A section of existing 600mm
diameter pipeline between the end of the new pipeline and the beach manhole,
has been lined with a structural lining.
19. Testing can now be carried out to
confirm the capacity increase that the new 1200mm diameter pipeline has
generated.
20. Works on the Marine section are
underway. To date 400m of the marine outfall has been cleared of debris.
Further work is planned when the weather permits. This will be followed by a
CCTV inspection of the outfall.
Clarifier 3
21. Piling trials were completed at the
end of September 2022. The contract documents are currently being finalised.
The contract award date is expected to be the end of May 2023, two months ahead
of schedule.
22. The steel casings and sheet piles
have been procured, and the physical works are expected to commence late June
2023
Environmental Mitigation & Enhancement Fund (EMEF)
23. Expressions of interest were sought
for the independent panel in December 2022. Council advertised through standard
media channels, industry and Local Government publications as well as on TCC's
website. Several candidates were shortlisted and interviewed in the first
quarter of 2023.
24. Next steps are for the appointment
panel (made up of committee members) to assess and appoint the independent
panel members. Once the panel is in place applications to the fund can
reopen.
Attachments
Nil
