|
|
AGENDA
Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting Wednesday, 31 May 2023 |
|
I hereby give notice that a Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting will be held on: |
|
Date: |
Wednesday, 31 May 2023 |
Time: |
1pm |
Location: |
Ground Floor Meeting Room 1 306 Cameron Road Tauranga |
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz. |
|
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive |
Terms of reference – Wastewater Management Review Committee
Membership
Chairperson |
Ms Lara Burkhardt – Ngā Pōtiki |
Deputy chairperson |
Commissioner Bill Wasley – Tauranga City Council |
Members |
Commissioner Stephen Selwood – Tauranga City Council Commissioner Bill Wasley – Tauranga City Council Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston – Tauranga City Council (alternate member) Ms Te Rangimārie Williams – Ngā Pōtiki Mr Whitiora McLeod - Ngāi Te Rangi Mr Des Heke - Ngāti Ranginui Ms Destiny Leaf – Ngāti Ranginui (alternate member) |
Quorum |
Four members with at least one member representing Tauranga City Council and one member representing Ngā Pōtiki |
Decision-making |
By consensus where possible. If consensus cannot be reached, by majority vote. If there is an equal number of votes, the member who is chairing the meeting has a casting vote. |
Meeting frequency |
A minimum of twice yearly |
Meeting venue |
To alternate between marae and council venues; or as appropriate to a meeting agreed by the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. |
The Committee previously had a membership of eight, four elected members from Tauranga City Council (TCC) and four iwi. Currently the membership will be reduced to six, two Commissioners appointed to represent the TCC and four who are appointed as representatives of iwi, with one member each from Ngāti Ranginui and Te Runanga o Ngāi Te Rangi Iwi Trust and two members representing Ngā Pōtiki ā Tamapahore Trust Board.
The Wastewater Management Review Committee is established as a committee of Council under the Local Government Act 2002 and conditions imposed on Bay of Plenty Regional Council Coastal Permit # 62878.
Role
· To ensure Wastewater operations are in accordance with the Wastewater Management Review Committee Management Plan.
Scope
(i) Decommissioning of the Te Maunga Sludge Pond and the future use of the pond.
(ii) Conversion of the Te Maunga Oxidation Ponds to wetlands.
(g) Assessment of the scope and adequacy of sampling and monitoring.
(h) Notification to appropriate parties of activities that may have adverse effects.
(i) To receive, review and recommend action following receipt of wastewater reports.
(i) Development of alternatives to waterborne wastewater systems;
(ii) Options for further treatments;
(iii) Options for methods of disposal;
(iv) Monitoring effects on the environment.
(p) Prior to making any:
(i) Decisions as to the allocation of the Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Fund in accordance with Condition 18.3(b) of Coastal Permit N0 62878 hereof or,
(ii) Recommendations to the Permit Holder in relation to physical environmental mitigation or enhancement or mitigation works in accordance with Condition 18.3(c) of Coastal Permit N0 62878 hereof; -
the Review Committee will exercise its best endeavours to ascertain the existence of any persons or bodies who may have a particular interest or stake in the ecological health of the Tauranga Harbour (particularly the Upper Harbour/Rangataua Bay area) and to consult with those bodies or persons as to appropriate initiatives and measures to be so recommended (in accordance with Condition 18.3(b)of Coastal Permit N0 62878) or undertaken (in accordance with Condition 18.3(c)of Coastal Permit N0 62878). As a minimum, the Review Committee shall consult with
· Nga Potiki Kaitiaki Resource Management Unit hapu and iwi of Te Runanga o Ngaiterangi Iwi Trust, Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga and Te Arawa and their respective hapu which hold kaitiaki status over the wider Tauranga Moana district, including any Working Group established by those hapu or iwi;
(s) A copy of this report shall also be provided to the Chief Executive, Tauranga City Council.
(u) Confirmation of Committee minutes.
Reporting
The Wastewater Management Review Committee reports to Council and the Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.
Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson acting as Co-Chairs
The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Wastewater Management Review Committee (WWMRC) have a governance role to ensure that the WWMRC meets regularly and undertakes its role to monitor and provide advice to Tauranga City Council as the consent holder of Bay of Plenty Regional Council Coastal Permit # 62878 and ensure wastewater operations are in accordance with the Wastewater Management Plan.
· The Deputy Chairperson will be appointed by the Wastewater Management Review Committee.
· While these roles are separately appointed it is the intention that they act as co-chairs.
○ Only one person can chair a meeting at any one time. The person chairing the meeting has the powers of the chairperson as set out in standing orders and has the option to use the casting vote in the case of an equality of votes.
○ The rotation of the meeting chairs is at the discretion of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and subject to their availability, however it is expected that they will alternate chairing meetings when possible.
○ When the Deputy Chairperson is chairing the meeting, the Chairperson will vacate the chair and enable the Deputy Chairperson to chair the meeting. The Chairperson will be able stay and participate in the meeting unless they declare a conflict of interest in an item, in which case they will not participate or vote on that item.
○ The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will attend pre-agenda briefings and split any other duties outside of meetings, e.g. spokesperson for WWMRC.
○ The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will jointly oversee and co-ordinate all activities of the WWMRC within their specific terms of reference and delegated authority, providing guidance and direction to all members and liaising with Council staff in setting the content and priorities of meeting agendas.
○ The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will be accountable for ensuring that any recommendations from the WWMRC are considered by the Tauranga City Council.
Refer to the position description for the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson for more details.
Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting Agenda |
31 May 2023 |
5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open
7.1 Minutes of the Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting held on 31 August 2022
8 Declaration of conflicts of interest
9.1 Wastewater Programme Business Case
31 May 2023 |
7.1 Minutes of the Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting held on 31 August 2022
File Number: A14722426
Author: Anahera Dinsdale, Governance Advisor
Authoriser: Anahera Dinsdale, Governance Advisor
That the Minutes of the Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting held on 31 August 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.
|
1. Minutes of the Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting held on 31 August 2022
|
31 August 2022 |
Order of Business
1 Opening karakia
2 Apologies
3 Public forum
4 Acceptance of late items
5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open
6 Change to order of business
7 Confirmation of minutes
7.1 Minutes of the Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting held on 1 June 2022
8 Declaration of conflicts of interest
9 Business
9.1 Governance options for Wastewater Management Review Committee
9.2 Wastewater Overflow Management Report
9.3 Wastewater Activities Report August 2022
Staff Actions
10 Discussion of late items
11 Closing karakia
MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Wastewater Management Review Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Ground Floor - Meeting Room 1, 306 Cameron Road, Tauranga
ON Wednesday, 31 August 2022 AT 1pm
PRESENT: Commissioner Bill Wasley, Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston, Ms Lara Burkhardt, Mr Des Heke, Mr Whitiora McLeod, Ms Te Rangimārie Williams
IN ATTENDANCE: Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Radleigh Cairns (Manager: Drainage Services), Wally Potts (Director: City Waters), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy & Governance Services), Sarah Drummond (Governance Advisor), Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor), Claudia Hellberg (Team Leader: City Waters Planning), Kelvin Hill (Manager: Water Infrastructure Outcomes), Jane Groves (Stormwater Programme Leader), Keren Paekau (Team Leader: Takawaenga), Tuana Kuka (Kaiārahi Maori), Onie Cairns (Kaiārahi Maori)
1 Opening karakia
Commissioner Shadrach
Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.
2 Apologies
Committee Resolution WW3/22/1 Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley Seconded: Ms Te Rangimārie Williams That apologies for absence from Commissioner Stephen Selwood and Destiny Leaf be received and accepted. That apologies for lateness from Lara Burkhardt and Des Heke be received and accepted. Carried |
3 Public forum
None
None
5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open
None
None
7.1 Minutes of the Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting held on 1 June 2022 |
Committee Resolution WW3/22/2 Moved: Mr Whitiora McLeod Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley That the minutes of the Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting held on 1 June 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record. Carried |
8 Declaration of conflicts of interest
None
9.1 Governance options for Wastewater Management Review Committee |
Staff Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy & Governance Services
Key points · Report taken as read. · As per amended Terms of Reference, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson would act as co-chair arrangement. · The Terms of Reference would be presented to Council for adoption on 5th September 2022. · Commissioner Bill Wasley nominated Ms Lara Burkhardt (Ngā Pōtiki) for Chairperson. · Mr Whitiora McLeod nominated Commissioner Bill Wasley for Deputy Chairperson.
In response to questions · The previous process was that Council would appoint the Chairperson of the committee. Wastewater Management Review Committee chairperson appointment was following status quo process. · Discussed standing orders 5.1 and 5.4, that committee had the right to appoint chairperson to the committee. · Commissioners could ask the Committee to appoint if Council was unable.
Discussion points raised · Recommendation to Council meeting held on 5 September 2022 for Chairperson and Deputy Chair appointments. |
Committee Resolution WW3/22/3 Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston Seconded: Mr Des Heke That the Wastewater Management Review Committee: (a) Receives
the report “Governance Options for Wastewater Management Review
Committee”. (d) Recommends to Council that the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Wastewater Management Review Committee alternate presiding of meetings and that the amended terms of reference for the Wastewater Management Review Committee as set out in Attachment 1 are adopted. Carried |
Committee Resolution WW3/22/4 Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley Seconded: Mr Whitiora McLeod That the Wastewater Management Review Committee: (b) Recommends to Council that Ms Lara Burkhardt is appointed as the Chairperson of the Wastewater Management Review Committee. Carried |
Committee Resolution WW3/22/5 Moved: Mr Whitiora McLeod Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston That the Wastewater Management Review Committee: (c) Appoints Commissioner Bill Wasley as the Deputy Chairperson of the Wastewater Management Review Committee. Carried |
Staff Radleigh Cairns, Manager: Drainage Services Wally Potts, Director: City Waters Claudia Hellberg, Team Leader: City Waters Planning PowerPoint presentation
Key points · Introduction from Tauranga City Council (TCC) staff in Waters and Takawaenga Unit. · Wastewater Management Review Committee members requested TCC staff provide information on wastewater overflow management to the Committee. · Overflows could be split into two categories. Wet weather overflows caused by inflow and infiltration of stormwater and groundwater into the wastewater network; and dry weather overflows caused by blockages and damage to the network. · Over three financial years, Council had been notified of 550 issues with wastewater. 85% dealt with prior to discharge to receiving environment, 7% contained to storm water network and 8% resulted in wastewater leakage into receiving environment. These were notified as per consents. · The process for wastewater overflow management was set up through Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BoPRC), Toi Te Ora and the six territorial authorities in BoPRC region. · Standardised framework for responding, reporting and notifying BoPRC and Toi te Ora of any overflow in the network. · Scheduled maintenance of network on frequent basis. · Maintenance contractor would be on site to assess the over flow within 60 minutes. Initial focus was to stop over flow and contain discharge. Notification process started if wastewater had leaked into receiving environment. · Staff aimed to prevent any leakages of wastewater to the receiving environment by scheduling preventative maintenance on flagged areas of the network. · CCTV in place across the network but found to be labour intensive to assess the footage. Staff worked to put in place a more efficient system. · Rapid assessment tool looked to increase the amount of network covered and less labour intensive. Good results from trial and tool was to be used over next two years. · New technologies meant better accurate data which should assist in better preventative measures. · Education programme on wastewater module running in schools for over a decade. This used to include a trip to Chapel St Wastewater Treatment Plant to help raise awareness to children. · Flush ability standard that manufacturers could look at going through for flushable wipes. Councils would still campaign the three P’s, no wipes should be flushed. · Previously, Council had educational days where schools would adopt an area of stream that was receiving environment. School would do stream testing and clean-up. · Difficult to measure Inflow & Infiltration (I&I). Strategic wastewater network model (SWNM) model in place.
In response to questions · Pipe slump, now flagged as area where blockages were most likely. After initial removal of blockage, a follow-up procedure would include site visits to make sure the problem had not moved further down the network; and checking and investigating the issue. · Clean-up around site of over flow included land, generally no necessary clean up on the receiving environment. Flushing generally not done. Monitor receiving environment to check if continuing issue. · No particular areas flagged for on-going problems due to dry weather blockages. Focus to reduce dry weather blockages (fats, oils, greases, wipes) with grease traps and fat blockages. Trade waste visits to restaurants if blockages occurred due to grease and fat. · Decline in the number of events of dry weather blockages. Decrease in blockages caused by dry wipes since awareness campaigns had been in place. · No toxic level 6 businesses in Tauranga City. There was a consenting process for businesses with a high level waste toxicity. · Stormwater managed by off line treatment with mitigation before flowing to stream. · Education programme to include storm and waste water and would include where storm and waste water ended up. Staff believed public may not be fully aware of this information. · Materials for piping – trunk mains were thick walled plastic. Local networks were fibre glass pipes 6m length pushed together by bolts. Programme for replacing old asbestos pipes was in place. Whether the asbestos pipes remained in the ground or were removed was a step by step process. · Stormwater management referenced Te Mana o te Wai.
Discussion points raised · Concern raised when Three Waters reform in place. · Prioritise on Entity B. Tauranga City Council worked to get into best position before three waters reform goes into practice. |
Committee Resolution WW3/22/6 Moved: Mr Des Heke Seconded: Mr Whitiora McLeod That the Wastewater Management Review Committee: (a) Receives the report “Wastewater Overflow Management Report”. Carried |
Attachments 1 WWMRC Meeting Powerpoint August 2022 pdf |
Staff Radleigh Cairns, Manager: Drainage Services
PowerPoint presentation
Key points · Short discussion of Programme Business case. · Bio reactor 2, number of piles had issues for Geotech. · 2023 start construction above ground. Prefabrication of infrastructure finished Nov 2022. Awaiting ground improvements. · Received Cultural Impact Assessment from Ngā Pōtiki. Relining was accounted for and current discharge consents. If work required e.g. relining along dunes, this was unconsented and would need consents to approve. · The contractor to de-sludge pond at Te Maunga was on-site August 2022 and would commence desludging of old sludge pond in September 2022 for approximately 16 months. · Current consent allowed disposal to land on-site, cheapest option. Consent conditions for disposal to landfill expired in March 2024. Otherwise would be transferred off site – previously transported to Hampton Downs and results were costly. · Opal Drive – housing removed from site B. Site A housing would remain for 5 years. Design presented. · Culverts that connected to Wairakei were being installed. · Consent monitoring – monitoring results were within consent requirements. · Monitoring found an increase in seepage rates due to higher levels in Pond 1 from rainfall in 2022. · No odour complaints for Chapel St or Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant in 2022. · Bi-annual odour survey to begin October 2022. · Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Fund (EMEF) – June meeting appointed two representatives to panel. Worked to get expressions of interest and open applications early 2023.
In response to questions · A Cultural Impact Assessment was received from Ngā Pōtiki. · Report back on options for disposal of sludge had been requested by a member in June meeting. · Water portion discharge to land, Maketu site. They did not discharge sludge. · Costly project to de-sludge pond due to minimal options. |
Committee Resolution WW3/22/7 Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston Seconded: Ms Lara Burkhardt That the Wastewater Management Review Committee: (a) Receives the report “Wastewater Activities Report August 2022”. Carried |
· Mr Whitiora McLeod requested the Cultural Impacts Assessment received from Nga Potiki be distributed to Wastewater Management Review Committee. · Members requested discussion on Decommissioning of Sludge Pond at Te Maunga be tabled at each meeting. · Staff to arrange a site visit to Te Maunga Water Treatment Plant and Transfer Station for Wastewater Management Review Committee members. |
None
11 Closing karakia
Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.
The meeting closed at 2:25pm.
The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting held on 31 May 2023.
...................................................
CHAIRPERSON
31 May 2023 |
31 May 2023 |
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.
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);
*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’).
1. 2023
May 31 Wastewater Management Review Committee - Wastewater Programme Business
Case Attachment 1 PDF (A14691634) - A14691639 ⇩
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.
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.
Nil
31 May 2023 |