|
Council
20 March 2024
|
|
File No.: 24/114
7.3 Waikawa Beach Vehicle Access-way
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this
report is to update the Council on the outcomes of the recent community
consultation regarding the provision of vehicle access to Waikawa Beach. The
findings are intended to facilitate informed decision-making by elected
members, taking into account the sentiments of the private land owners and the
community and regarding this matter.
This report directly aligns with
one of Council’s top 10 priorities “Get the basics right and
support the customer focussed delivery of core services”.
2. Executive Summary
2.1 This report investigates
options relating to the longstanding issue of vehicular access to Waikawa
Beach, which has been historically limited to a single point on privately owned
land. Recent challenges, such as erosion and weather-related events, have
underscored the need for a sustainable, long term solution. Through extensive
community engagement, significant division within the community has emerged,
with conflicting viewpoints on the importance of continued vehicle access versus
environmental preservation and safety concerns.
2.2 One notable proposal
involves a community funding offer of up to NZD $300,000 to fully fund Option
1, including environmental measures and maintenance for 15 years. While a
majority of community survey respondents support reinstating vehicle access,
concerns and preferences vary widely.
2.3 The report attempts to
emphasise the importance of balancing community interests, environmental
protection, financial considerations, and arguably one of the most important
aspects in balancing the mana and respect of the landowners in navigating this
complex challenge.
3. Recommendation
3.1 That Report 24/114
Waikawa Beach Vehicle Access-way be received.
3.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as significant in terms of
S76 of the Local Government Act.
3.3 That Council does not
facilitate vehicle access to Waikawa Beach. However, continues to support
pedestrian access through established pathways on publicly owned land. OR
3.4 That Council pauses the
current process and re-assesses options to provide beach access on Waikawa
beach at an alternate site. OR
3.5 That Council pauses the
current process and lays it on the table to resume at a future date
4. Background / Previous Council Decisions
4.1 Historically, vehicular
access to Waikawa Beach has been limited to a single point on privately owned
land extending from the mouth of the Waikawa River, located at the end of Manga
Pirau Street. This access has been graciously provided to the community by the
landowner as a gesture of goodwill, there are no formal agreements in place
with Council or the community in relation to providing this access.
4.2 In recent years,
maintaining the existing vehicle access off Manga Pirau Street has become
increasingly challenging due to bank erosion from the adjacent Waikawa Stream
and more frequent weather-related events.
4.3 The shifting course of
the Waikawa Stream, influenced by wind and high tides, has led to erosion
beneath the vehicular access point. Consequently, there have been instances
where local residents were unable to access the beach with their vehicles.
4.4 Management of this issue
was previously undertaken by Horizons Regional Council, primarily through
stream "cuts" to redirect the channel towards the sea. The most
recent cut was in June 2018 to address track wash-out. However, it is important
to note that the consent for these remedial actions expired in 2020.
4.5 In November 2021, a
petition with 158 signatures was submitted to Council, urging the
establishment of a sustainable vehicular and equestrian access to Waikawa
Beach, using council-owned land at Reay MacKay Drive. The petition was presented
to the Council on 01 December 2021.
4.6 During
the 2021/41 Long term Plan, Council provided budget for officers to identify
and evaluate the potential options to provide a long term beach access
(suitable for 4wd vehicles, ATV’s and tractors) at Waikawa Beach, and
undertake a community engagement process to gather feedback on the options.
4.7 Council
officers, in collaboration with external planning and environmental consultants
Boffa Miskell, assessed various options for potential vehicular beach access at
Waikawa Beach and presented five options to take forward for wider community
consultation to Council at its meeting on 11 October 2023.
Location 1 – Waikawa
Stream Pedestrian Bridge. High cost, consenting risk, potential land ownership
issues, high maintenance.
Location
2 – Manga Pirau North. High erosion risk, costly engineering needed,
potential opposition from residents.
Location 3 – Existing
access Manga Pirau Access. Lowest environmental impact, ongoing maintenance
costs, community education needed.
Location
4 – Via 10 Reay Mackay Grove. High maintenance due to complex access
over dunes, ecological risks, strong opposition from Reay Mackay Grove
residents.
Location 5 – Via 60 Reay Mackay Grove High
construction costs, narrow access, safety challenges, strong opposition from
Reay MacKay Grove residents.
4.8 The preliminary
investigations outlined complex considerations, encompassing financial,
geomorphological, environmental, and consenting challenges. Council elected to
go out the community with three options for consideration. The three options
that were taken forward for Community Consultation were:
Option 1 Use the current
access located at the end of Manga Pirau Street. Establish a lease agreement
between Council and the landowners, and provision of maintenance without
application for river training.
Option 2 Use the current
access located at the end of Manga Pirau Street. Establish a lease agreement
between Council and the landowners, and provision of maintenance with
application for river training.
Option 3 Council will not
facilitate vehicle access to Waikawa Beach. However, it will continue to
support pedestrian access through established pathways on publicly owned land.
4.9 Officers finalised the
consultation and engagement material, which were then distributed to the
community on 20 December 2023. The consultation period remained open until 20
February 2024. Council interacted with the community through a range of
mechanisms, including: Lets Kōrero (website), Letter drop to residents,
Social Media Platforms, Community Connection, Community Groups and progressive
associations and public meetings.
4.10 A total of 446 submissions were
received and have been analysed for discussion. Numerous themes emerged during
the consultation period, which will be explored later in this report. The raw
submission data has been provided to the Council in confidence ahead of this
meeting.
5. Discussion
5.1 It is clear that the
issue of vehicle access at Waikawa Beach has caused significant tension within
the community. Following the closure of the beach access last year, Council has
received reports indicating a divided community, with some residents supporting
the provision of access and others opposing it and this has flowed through in
the submissions with many reporting that this topic has caused a deep sense of
frustration and discord among residents. Finding a solution that addresses the
concerns of both sides while preserving the integrity of the beach and ensuring
public safety will not only be challenging but crucial for fostering unity and
harmony within the community.
Landowner
perspective
5.2 Historically,
access to Waikawa Beach has been facilitated by private landowners who have
generously provided access to the community without seeking recognition or any
financial gain.
5.3 Officers
have been working closely with the landowners in trying to negotiate a lease
agreement. It is essential to note that the landowners do not see providing
access over their land as a permanent arrangement, as they have other
aspirations for their family land and any access would be granted on a short
term basis. What is critical in whatever decision is made regarding beach
access is that the mana and interests of the whānau are protected and that
they are not unfairly subject to criticism from the community as a result of
decisions made by Council.
5.4 Council
Officers will continue working with the private landowners to maintain their
rights over their land, in a capacity that supports their ambitions as they
have graciously provided this service to the community. However, this means
Options 1 and 2 are no longer viable at this stage.
General Commentary
5.5 Concerningly,
there have been reports of community members creating their own paths through
sensitive ecological areas to reach the beach, driven over and damaged private
land, as well as reports of a sense of fear among some residents about
expressing their opinions due to welfare and safety concerns. Additionally,
there have been instances of individuals blatantly disregarding the law, as evidenced
by pictures sent to Council Officers. Police have been involved in monitoring
the situation and Council Officers have kept Horizons Regional Council informed
of damage and destruction of dunes and plantings. The behaviour of some members
of the public throughout this period has been disappointing to hear about and
is a cause for significant concern. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of
respect for the environment and private property, but it also poses risks to
the safety and wellbeing of both residents and visitors to the area.
5.6 Council Officers
acknowledge that the situation is less than ideal, with the river washing away
the access prior to summer, and heard the calls from the community to reinstate
a temporary access through the original accessway. Given the consultation
process was already underway, the need to ensure that any access should be
consented, and the fact that establishing a temporary access, was an option
that we were actively seeking the communities feedback on, chose to encourage
residents to put their energy to the current submission process rather than the
establishment of a temporary accessway.
5.7 Several
submissions have suggested relocating the beach access from its current route
over private land to a path over Council-owned land. This possibility was
explored earlier in the consultation process when five options were initially
presented to the Council. Extensive analysis was conducted to assess the
feasibility of these options, taking into account factors such as ecological
considerations, the likelihood of obtaining consent, and the costs associated
with establishing a new walkway. Considering these factors, the Council decided
to advance three options for further consultation with the wider community,
none of which involved relocating the beach access to another point due to the
reasons mentioned above.
5.8 The
table below summarises assessments for potential access options, evaluating
viability in ecological, geomorphological, planning, cost, and practicality aspects
using a traffic light system for constraints.
Snapshot of
Submissions Received
Detailed
Analysis of Submissions Received
OPTION 1 -
Use the current access located at the end of Manga Pirau Street. Establish a
lease agreement between Council and the landowners, and provision of
maintenance without application for river training.
Recreational Purposes
5.9 Supporters of vehicle
access to Waikawa Beach argue that it enhances recreational opportunities for
both locals and visitors alike. Allowing vehicles onto the beach enables
families to easily transport bulky equipment like surfboards, kayaks, and
picnic supplies, making it more feasible for them to enjoy a day by the sea.
This accessibility fosters a sense of community engagement and encourages
outdoor activities, which are essential for physical and mental wellbeing.
Additionally, vehicle access facilitates beach events and gatherings, enriching
the cultural fabric of the area and promoting social cohesion among residents
and visitors to the district.
Accessibility
5.10 Advocates for maintaining vehicle
access emphasise its significance in ensuring accessibility for elderly
individuals and those with mobility challenges. For many in these demographics,
traversing long distances on foot can be daunting or even impossible. By
permitting vehicles on Waikawa Beach, people of all ages and abilities can
enjoy its natural beauty and serenity without facing unnecessary physical
barriers. This inclusivity aligns with principles of equity and fairness,
allowing everyone to partake in the beach experience regardless of their
physical limitations.
Historical Access
5.11 Historically, vehicle access to
Waikawa Beach has been a longstanding tradition, deeply ingrained in the local
community's identity. Generations of families have enjoyed the convenience of
driving onto the sand for leisurely outings, forming cherished memories and
traditions along the way. Preserving this historical access honours the
heritage and legacy of those who have called Waikawa Beach home for
generations, maintaining a vital connection to the past while embracing the
present and future.
Emergency Response
5.12 Some submitters in favour of
retaining access stress the critical importance of vehicle access in terms of
emergency response capabilities. Allowing emergency vehicles to access the
beach directly can reduce response times, potentially saving lives in urgent
situations. By maintaining vehicle access, Waikawa Beach can better safeguard
the safety and wellbeing of its residents and visitors, ensuring a swift and
effective response to any unforeseen events.
Financial Considerations
5.13 Financial considerations are raised
by several submissions, with concerns focusing on the cost implications of
various access options, including leasing land, maintenance expenses, and
potential rate increases. Suggestions for addressing financial concerns include
exploring community-funded solutions, implementing paid permit systems to
offset costs, and prioritising proactive maintenance to avoid higher expenses
in the future.
Environmental Preservation
5.14 While supportive of providing a
beach access, environmental preservation is a significant theme raised by
numerous submissions, emphasising the importance of protecting the fragile
ecosystem of the beach. Concerns include damage to sand dunes, plant life, and
wildlife habitats caused by vehicle access. Suggestions for mitigating
environmental damage include exploring alternative access solutions that
minimise ecological impact, such as floating bridges or reinforcement structures,
and implementing proactive measures to restore and protect the natural
environment.
OPTION 2 -
Use the current access located at the end of Manga Pirau Street. Establish a
lease agreement between Council and the landowners, and provision of maintenance
with application for river training.
5.15 River training refers to a set of
engineering techniques used to control the flow of a river and prevent it from
changing course or causing erosion to nearby land. These techniques are
typically employed in areas where rivers are prone to flooding or where their
natural course poses a threat to infrastructure or settlements. River training
methods can include:
· Reinforcing the banks of the river with materials such as rocks,
concrete, or vegetation to prevent erosion and stabilise the banks.
· Modifying the natural channel of the river to control its flow and
prevent it from meandering or shifting course. This may involve dredging,
excavation, or the construction of artificial channels.
· Building structures such as levees, dams, weirs, and groynes to
regulate water flow, control sediment deposition, and prevent flooding.
· Planting vegetation along the riverbanks to stabilise soil, reduce
erosion, and provide habitat for wildlife.
5.16 All of the themes that are
commented in Option 1 are also relevant with this option. In looking
specifically at the river training aspect, which is the point of difference
from Option 1, the following themes are evident within the submissions.
Water Quality and Safety
5.17 Concerns regarding water quality
and safety were paramount in submissions discussing river training. Residents
highlighted issues such as contamination and stagnant water, which posed risks
to recreational activities like swimming and fishing. River training was
advocated as a potential solution to improve water flow, mitigate
contamination, and enhance overall safety for community members enjoying the
river.
Environmental Impact
5.18 Many submissions emphasised the
need to balance river training efforts with environmental conservation.
Residents expressed worries about the potential disruption to wildlife habitats
and ecosystems caused by river training measures. There was a consensus that
any interventions must be environmentally sustainable and minimise adverse
effects on the natural surroundings.
Historical Context
5.19 Some submissions referenced past
experiences with river training initiatives, suggesting a precedent for such
efforts. Previous projects were cited as examples of successful interventions
that had addressed similar issues in the past. This historical context provided
valuable insights into the potential effectiveness of river training measures
and underscored the importance of continuing or expanding these efforts.
Cost Considerations
5.20 While not the primary focus, cost
considerations were mentioned in some submissions discussing river training.
Residents acknowledged the financial implications of such projects and called
for a balanced approach that weighed the costs against the benefits. While
emphasising the importance of safety and environmental protection, submitters
also stressed the need for cost-effective solutions that maximised community
value.
OPTION 3 -
Council will not facilitate vehicle access to Waikawa Beach. However, it will
continue to support pedestrian access through established pathways on publicly
owned land.
Environmental Conservation
5.21 Preserving the delicate ecosystems
of Waikawa Beach is paramount to many community members, who express concerns
about the detrimental effects of vehicle access on the area's flora and fauna.
They stress the importance of protecting endangered birdlife and native
plantings from the damage caused by vehicles driving on the beach.
Community Safety
5.22 The safety of residents,
particularly children and animals, is a significant concern raised by multiple
submissions. They advocate for a vehicle-free environment to mitigate the risks
posed by vehicle traffic and create a safer space for beachgoers to enjoy
recreational activities without fear of accidents or injury.
Respect for Private Property
5.23 There is a shared expectation among
submissions regarding the importance of respecting the rights and
responsibilities of landowners who graciously allow access to their property
for beach access. Vandalism and disregard for private property are viewed as
detrimental to the relationship between the community and landowners,
undermining the mutual trust and respect essential for maintaining access.
Accessibility
5.24 Some submissions highlight the need
to enhance pedestrian access to the beach, ensuring it is inclusive and
convenient for all members of the community, including those with mobility
challenges. Suggestions for improvements include removing barriers on footbridges
and installing ramps to facilitate easier access for individuals with
disabilities.
Financial Considerations
5.25 Concerns about the financial
implications of reinstating vehicle access are prevalent in several
submissions, particularly regarding the costs associated with infrastructure
development, maintenance, and potential liability issues. There is a
recognition of the need for careful consideration of the financial burden on
the council and ratepayers.
Alternative Access Options:
5.26 Many submissions propose
alternative access points to nearby beaches where vehicle access is maintained,
such as Ōtaki and Hōkio Beach. This suggests a preference for
preserving vehicle access in nearby areas while safeguarding Waikawa Beach as a
vehicle-free destination to protect its unique ecosystem.
Council Responsibility
5.27 There is an expectation among
submissions that the Council should prioritise environmental protection and
community safety over individual entitlement to vehicle access. Some call for
the Council to support landowners in their role as kaitiaki of the land and
make decisions that benefit the broader community, reflecting a desire for
responsible governance and stewardship of natural resources.
Waikawa Beach Ratepayers
Association’s (WBRA) interim survey
5.28 The WBRA undertook a survey of the
community to help inform their submission to Council. They sent an email to
their database which included 187 past and present members of the Waikawa Beach
community. This email indicated that their recipients were welcome to share the
link, however the preference was that the survey was intended to for community
members only.
5.29 The survey was open for a period of
one week and the following questions were asked.
Question
One: do you support the Council reestablishing the
Manga Pirau St Vehicle access to the beach?
|
Answer Choices
|
%
|
Responses
|
|
Yes
|
63%
|
112
|
|
No
|
37%
|
65
|
|
Total
|
|
177
|
Question
Two: Have you made your submission to Council?
|
Answer Choices
|
%
|
Responses
|
|
Yes
|
33%
|
57
|
|
No, I am leaving this until later
|
56%
|
97
|
|
No, I am not going to make a
submission
|
10%
|
18
|
|
Total
|
|
172
|
5.30 The survey also provided the
opportunity for the community to make comment to support their answers.
Approximately 75% of those that responded to the survey made additional
comments relating to the matter.
5.31 Supporters of providing beach
access cited various reasons, primarily centred around maintaining their
lifestyle, including transporting family, fishing, and equipment (55% of
comments). Additionally, they emphasised ensuring access for everyone (26%) and
the need for emergency medical access (17%). A significant portion (23%)
highlighted the importance of vehicle access for disabled or elderly
individuals. Some expressed support for the environment (16%). A few (7%)
supported vehicle beach access but with reservations or advocated for limited
access.
5.32 Opponents of providing beach access
predominantly cited environmental concerns (46% of comments), followed by
safety issues (35%) and irresponsible behaviour by vehicle users (30%). Cost
was mentioned by 22% as a reason against restoring vehicle access, while 15%
noted the availability of vehicle access in other beaches. Some (6%) observed
an increase in families on the beach. A small portion (3%) felt there were more
pressing community issues for the council to address. Additionally, 15%
suggested that if vehicle beach access were allowed, it should be restricted,
with proposals including designated areas, locked gates, and permit
requirements.
5.33 A full copy of the Waikawa Beach
Ratepayer Associations Survey is attached as an appendix to this report.
Community Submission
5.34 Throughout the course of the
consultation, Officers and Councillors have received a proposal from within the
community generously wishing to contribute funding to enable the development of
the access way. The full proposal is attached to this report however the key
details as supplied by the submitter are detailed below.
Proposal /
Donation to fully fund Option 1 (plus more) in the consultation document for
Waikawa Beach Vehicle Access
Purpose of the
offer:
A donation of up to
NZD $300,000 to fully fund option 1 to reinstate and build a robust and
resilient Vehicle Access at Waikawa Beach along with a full suite of
Environmental, Ecological and Educational measures plus Vehicle Access
maintenance for 15 years. The ramp / access would be used by vehicles,
pedestrians (maybe steps on one side) and horses. Note the current vehicle
access has only ever been a track through sand with no structure.
This offer removes
cost as a barrier and addresses the concerns of the community over a long
period of time (15 years minimum). This is a fully funded solution that meets
the needs of the majority of the community.
Goal = A target time
line of getting the access designed, consented, built and completed prior to
December 2024 so it can be used by the community by Christmas 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________
1. This offer has been made to
Horowhenua District Council as part of the submission process via a community
member to be considered as part of the decision-making process by the elected
members.
2. The donation funds are via the
entity: Waikawa Trust and the funds are real (clear funds in a bank account).
If the offer is accepted a new trust may be formed specifically to work with
HDC and associated parties such as Waikawa Beach Ratepayers Association.
3. Waikawa Beach home-owners, are
representing the trust making the offer and have authority to do so.
4. Spokesperson for the Waikawa
Trust is “Kurt Renner” who would welcome the opportunity to speak
to the submission and funding proposal, prior to Council deliberating.
Understanding this process will be in the public.
5. The total amount offered is up
to $300,000 NZD – with a break down along the lines of below (but open to
discuss with HDC):
Funds broken
down
Total Community
Funding of up to $300,000 over 15 years – This funding has already been secured from the
community and should the Council agree to pursue Option 1, the Council can then
decide if they wish to accept the community funding that is on offer. If that
happens, a mechanism should be put in place to enable everyone the opportunity
to donate should they wish. The total funding proposed will be under-written by
the Trust.
This Community offer
would work in partnership with the local Iwi and private Landowners, the
Horowhenua District Council and the local Waikawa Beach community, in
conjunction with Waikawa Beach Ratepayers Association (WBRA). This proposal
should show just how serious the community is re having access and at the same
time protecting the environment, the sand dunes, the wild-life and fellow beach
goes. We can work together.
The Council would be
responsible for negotiation and ongoing cost of the lease with private
Landowners.
Year 1: Total community funding up to $160,000
1. Up to $140,000 to re-establish a robust,
resilient Vehicle Access with erosion protection, which is the figure showing
in the consultation document as option 1 to re-establish a vehicle &
pedestrian access at Manga Pirau street. A suitable access that has a
ramp, maybe a walk-way on one side and pedestrian stairs on the other, giving
options for various mobilities, including horses.
· The Council may find it costs less – so
open book and full transparency of costs associated with re-establishing an
access is required and community pay up to the $140k
· The Council may wish to go with option 2 of
their submission, so they funds could be put towards that – up to the
$140k (this is not what my submission is asking for – option 1 is my
preference)
· If option 1 is implemented it does not mean that
option 2 or other erosion and river protection measures which enable even more
resilient ongoing vehicle access could not be looked at in the future and again
the community look to help fund such measures.
2. Up to $10,000 spend on new clear signage and
bird nesting wired areas (physical deterrents and educational signs)
· Signage at the access – New and clear
(currently there are way too many signs)
· Signs by the bird nesting areas (currently there
are none)
· Dune protection signs along the beach every 100
metres all the way to the Horowhenua boundary (would teach people not to go on
the dunes and why)
· More bird nesting wired areas. (1st
year ever to have some – they are great but need more)
3. Up to $5,000 on planting of Spinifex for dune
stability – would think this would initially be around the dunes of where
the work was completed to re-instate the vehicle access. The dunes around the
access will recover over time with sand dug out put behind the barrier and
planted.
4. Up to $5,000 spend on Educational material
produced and distributed to every house in Waikawa Beach (and available to
share digitally) – to show people how to protect the beach, where to go
and where not to go and why? Explaining why we stay off the dunes etc.
These measures together should encourage good behaviours on
the beach. If it does not we can look at more direct methods such as funded
community patrols.
Years 2 - 15:
Total community funding up to $10,000 per year (over 14 years @ $10,000 per
year = $140,000)
1. Up to $5,000 for maintenance on Vehicle Access
2. Up to $5,000 for more planting, any new signage
(repairs), wire bird nesting areas or any new educational material (reprint
etc) or towards Waikawa Beach river improvements
Years 16 and onwards should be a continuation of funding by
the full community.
How it could work
in partnership in practice
The trust holding
the funds would work with HDC and the community via Waikawa Beach Ratepayers
Association to do things such as
· Community planting days
· Creation and design of new
signage (signed off by HDC)
· Installation of new signage
along the beach (signed off by HDC)
· Creation and design of the
educational materials (signed off by HDC)
5.40 The suggested approach
potentially involves employing a board-and-chain or a similar surface for the
dynamic foredune stretches along the access track. This measure aims to
diminish the potential for surface erosion caused by both vehicles and wind.
Typically, the setup involves securing the structure’s top to timber
posts firmly driven into the dune. Chains are then positioned at intervals so
that the weight of vehicle wheels is distributed over them rather than directly
on the boards. Regular maintenance will be necessary to ensure the surface
remains on top of the sand.
6. 
Options
6.1 Option 1: Utilisation of current vehicular
access with lease agreement and provision of maintenance budget without
application for river training.
· At
this stage, this is no longer a viable option.
6.2 Option
2: Utilisation of current vehicular access with lease agreement and provision
of maintenance budget including an application for river training.
· At
this stage, this is no longer a viable option.
6.3 Option 3: Council
will not facilitate vehicle access to Waikawa Beach. However, it will continue
to support pedestrian access through established pathways on publicly owned
land.
6.4 Council pauses the current process and re assesses
options to provide beach access on Waikawa beach at an alternate site.
6.5 Council pauses the current process and lays it on the
table to resume at a future date.
Cost
|
Option
|
Cost
(CAPEX)
|
Cost
(OPEX)
|
Reestablishment
costs
|
|
Option 1
|
$140,000
|
$30,000
|
$20,000
|
|
Option 2
|
$1,350,000
|
$30,000
|
$20,000
|
|
Option 3
|
$ 30,000
|
|
|
|
Option 4
|
$ 50,000
(estimate)
|
|
|
|
Option 5
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
6.6 These costs are a best
estimate taking into account the work that has been done to date in
investigating options. There are several aspects that could have an impact on
overall costs such as:
· Requirements
based on the Resource Consent.
· The volume of physical
work required if the river training is included.
· Negotiating a
final lease agreement.
Rate Impact
6.7 In addition to the
capital costs, it is suggested that an operational budget of at least $30,000
is allowed for each financial year to cover maintenance of the track and also
lease costs with the potential landowner.
|
Capex cost
|
Rates impact (2023/24)
|
Rates impact (2024/25)
|
|
Option 1
|
$ 140,000
|
0.01%
|
0.01%
|
|
Option 2
|
$ 1,350,000
|
0.06%
|
0.05%
|
|
Option 3
|
$ 30,000
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
Option 4
|
$ 50,000
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
Assumed interest rate
|
4.8%
|
4.8%
|
Community
Wellbeing
6.8 The issue of vehicle
access to Waikawa Beach has deeply impacted community wellbeing within the
community, resulting in significant tension and division among residents. The
prolonged debate and conflicting viewpoints have created frustration and
discord within the community, highlighting the need for a resolution. Reports
of vandalism, disregard for private property, and safety concerns have strained
community relations and contributed to a sense of unease among residents.
Addressing these issues is crucial for restoring community cohesion and
promoting overall wellbeing although given the complexity with the issue, there
is likely to be a proportion of the community unhappy regardless of the
decision made.
Consenting
Issues
6.9 Consenting issues
related to establishing vehicle access to Waikawa Beach are multifaceted and
complex, the initial work completed indicated that many of the potential
options were unlikely to be granted consent and the most likely path to success
was via the existing access. Obtaining consent for any river training measures
to mitigate erosion and ensure the long term viability of access points
presents a significant hurdle. Balancing these concerns while satisfying
community expectations will require careful negotiation and planning.
LTP
Integration
6.10 The project has arisen from the
2021 Long Term Plan.
7. Consultation
7.1 The consultation process regarding
vehicle access to Waikawa Beach has been extensive and inclusive, involving
various mechanisms to gather feedback from the community. Through platforms
such as Let’s Kōrero, social media, public meetings, and community
groups, stakeholders had the opportunity to express their opinions and
concerns. The high number of submissions received highlights the significance
of the issue and the diverse range of perspectives within the community.
8. Legal Considerations
8.1 Several legal
considerations must be taken into account when addressing the issue of vehicle
access to Waikawa Beach. These include contractual obligations with private
landowners, compliance with environmental regulations, and adherence to
relevant legislation. Additionally, any proposed agreements or lease
arrangements must be legally sound and enforceable to avoid potential disputes
or legal challenges.Officers have engaged the services of our legal expertise
to navigate these complexities will be essential in developing robust and
sustainable solution
9. Financial Considerations
9.1 A total budget of
$300,000 was provided as part of the 2021-2041 LTP. To date $115,886 has been
spent in informing the initial investigation the remaining budget in this
financial year is $183,886.
9.2 An additional
operational budget for maintenance has not currently being built into existing
budgets.
10. Iwi
Considerations
10.1 Council Officers have engaged with
representatives from Ngāti Wehi Wehi who have maintained their position of
supporting the whanau as kaitiaki as their whenua.
11. Climate
Change Considerations
11.1 Climate change considerations are
paramount when planning for the long term sustainability of vehicle access to
Waikawa Beach. Rising sea levels, increased storm frequency, and coastal
erosion pose significant threats to coastal infrastructure and ecosystems. Any
proposed solutions must incorporate adaptive measures to mitigate the impacts
of climate change and ensure resilience against future environmental
challenges. Sustainable land management practices, ecosystem restoration, and
infrastructure resilience strategies are essential components of
climate-resilient beach access solutions.
12. Environmental
Considerations
12.1 Preserving the natural environment
and fragile ecosystems of Waikawa Beach is a critical consideration when
evaluating options for vehicle access. The potential impacts of vehicle traffic
on sand dunes, plant life, and wildlife habitats must be carefully assessed and
mitigated to minimise ecological damage. Incorporating environmental protection
measures, such as revegetation efforts, habitat restoration, and ecological
monitoring, is essential for maintaining the integrity of the beach ecosystem
and ensuring its long term sustainability for future generations.
13. Health
& Safety Considerations
13.1 Health and safety considerations
are paramount when determining the feasibility of vehicle access to Waikawa
Beach. Ensuring the safety of residents, visitors, and emergency responders is
a primary concern, particularly in light of potential hazards such as erosion,
flooding, and vehicle accidents. Implementing appropriate safety measures, such
as signage, barriers, and emergency response protocols, is essential for
mitigating risks and safeguarding public wellbeing. Additionally, promoting
responsible behaviour and community education initiatives can help foster a
culture of safety and respect for the environment.
14. Other
Considerations
14.1 It is crucial to consider the
protection of landowner rights throughout the decision-making process. The concerns
and frustrations expressed by the landowners regarding vandalism, disrespect
for their property, and the sense of entitlement from some members of the
community highlight the need to safeguard their interests. Any decision
regarding beach access should take into account the potential impact on the
landowners and ensure that their rights are respected.
14.2 Another important consideration is
the community's expectations regarding beach access. Effective communication
and engagement strategies will be vital in managing community expectations and
fostering understanding and support for the chosen course of action given the
current feeling regarding this topic.
15. Next
Steps
15.1 The next steps in addressing the
issue of vehicle access to Waikawa Beach are contingent upon the decision of
the council. Should the council decide to re-assess options then Officers will
begin to look at the alternatives including on other privately owned land. If
Council choose not to allow beach access, it is imperative to maintain
transparency and communication with the community, ensuring that they are
informed about the Council's decision and the rationale behind it. If Council
decide to lay it on the table, Officers will continue to work with all parties
in the aim of bringing this complex situation to a resolution in the near
future.
15.2 Regardless, officers will look ways
to mitigate damage to the dunes
16. Supporting
Information
|
Strategic Fit/Strategic Outcome
The project is in line with the
2021-2041 Long Term Plan and aligns with a number of community outcomes.
|
|
Decision Making
The decision can be made at an
ordinary meeting of Council.
|
|
Consistency with Existing Policy
No specific policies are supported by
the project.
|
|
Funding
Funding is provided via the LTP,
however depending on the option choose additional funding may be required
dependant on the direction chosen.
|
|
Risk Area
|
Risk Identified
|
Consequence
|
Likelihood
|
Risk Assessment (Low to Extreme)
|
Managed how
|
|
Financial
|
Options may
require further funding in addition to the current budget to achieve resource
consents.
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
Council will
decide on which options to pursue if any.
|
|
Service
Delivery
|
For some
considerable period of time residents and visitors to Waikawa Beach have been
able to access the sea via vehicles. Not funding the works would result in a
loss of vehicular access over private land for the community.
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
A number of
options have been researched and developed for Council’s attention that
provide for a range of responses to continue to facilitate access.
|
|
Legal
|
There are no
legal risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reputational
|
Lack of
providing vehicular beach access over private land to the Waikawa beach will
likely result in a loss of service and may lead to reputational damage
locally and potentially nationally.
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
A number of
options have been researched and developed for Council’s attention that
provide for a range of responses to continue to facilitate access, or to
educate as to why it is no longer feasible.
|
|
Financial
|
Options may
require further funding in addition to the current budget to achieve resource
consents.
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
Council will
decide on which options to pursue if any.
|
|
Confirmation of statutory compliance
In accordance
with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:
a. containing
sufficient information about the options and their advantages and
disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,
b. is
based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views
and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the
significance of the decision.
|
· Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Submissions - Waikawa Beach
Vehicle Access - public summary
|
24
|
|
b⇩
|
Attachments to submissions -
Waikawa Beach Vehicle Access
|
149
|
|
c⇩
|
WBRA Survey Results
|
328
|
|
d⇩
|
Council Report Waikawa Beach
Vehicle Access 11 October 2023
|
333
|
|
Author(s)
|
Lacey Winiata
Parks & Property
Manager
|
|
|
|
Brent Harvey
Group Manager -
Community Experience & Services
|
|
|
Approved by
|
Monique Davidson
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
Council
20 March 2024
|
|
File
No.: 24/155
7.4 Regional Collaboration on a Water Services
Delivery Plan
1. Purpose
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to:
1.2 Provide
an overview of the Government’s intended legislative changes to give
effect to Local Water Done Well policy, including the requirement on councils
to develop a water service delivery plan.
1.3 Provide
an update on the work Horowhenua is progressing with its Manawatu-Whanganui
regional colleagues.
1.4 Ask
the council to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to collaboratively
develop a water service delivery plan working including consideration of future
delivery models with the other councils in the Wellington region.
1.5 Ask
the council to nominate an elected member to be council’s representative
on the Advisory Oversight Group for the joint water service delivery plan
process.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That
Report 24/155 Regional Collaboration on a Water Services Delivery Plan be
received.
2.2 That
this matter or decision is recognised as not
significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.
2.3 That
Council notes the work progressing on Manawatu-Whanganui CCO Project
Feasibility.
2.4 That
Council approves signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding to jointly develop a water service delivery plan
with the other councils in the Wellington region.
2.5 That
Council agrees to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to finalise the
Memorandum of Understanding, consistent with discussions and any amendments
made by the Committee.
2.6 That
Council agrees to nominate [CR Name] to be Council’s representative on
the Advisory Oversight Group for the joint water service delivery plan process
in the Wellington Region.
3. Background / Previous Council Decisions
Local Water Done Well policy
and legislative change
3.1 Change is
coming to how water is regulated and managed by local authorities. The
Government has repealed the Water Service Entities Act 2022 and set out the
process and legislative changes required to give effect to their Local Water
Done Well policy.
3.2 Local
Water Done Well policy is based on a clear premise that change is required and
will happen. The policy is still under development, but indicatively will
be based on the following requirements:
· Councils to develop a water services plan: Within a year, councils must develop a plan to transition to a new
water service delivery model that can meet regulatory and investment
requirements.
· Increased regulation in relation
o Water quality regulation
o Infrastructure investment regulation
· Financial sustainability – water
services models must be financially sustainable, based on:
o Revenue sufficiency
o Ring fencing to fund investment
o Funding for growth
3.3 The
first new bill (stage 2 in figure 1), is expected to be introduced and enacted
mid-2024. This bill is being informed by an expert Technical Advisory
Group. This legislation is expected to set out a clear framework for
councils to develop a future water service delivery plan within 12 months of
enactment. It is also expected to set out the foundations for economic
regulation and streamline requirements for establishing council-controlled
organisations under the Local Government Act. This will enable councils
to move to different models, should they choose to do so.
3.4 The second
bill (Stage 3 in figure 1), is expected to be introduced in late 2024 and
enacted by mid-2025. This is expected to set out provisions relating to
long-term requirements for financial sustainability, provide for a complete
economic regulation regime, and a new range of structural and financing tools,
including a new type of financially independent council-controlled
organisation.
3.5 The
second bill will also establish regulatory backstop powers, to be used when
required to ensure effective delivery of financially sustainable or safe water
services. In addition, it will make amendments to the water regulator’s
legislation to be used to ensure delivery of financially sustainable or safe
water services.
3.6 All
legislation to support the implementation of Local Water Done Well is expected
to be passed by mid-2025 – ahead of the local government elections in
October 2025.
The need for change
3.7 Councils
across New Zealand are facing stark challenges to meet the investment needed
for drinking water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure.
3.8 The
need for change to how water services are funded and delivered has been the
subject of several major reviews, policy processes and legislative reform since
at least 2016.
3.9 Significant
and sustained investment is required over the coming decades to ensure councils
can continue to enable growth, provide safe drinking water, improve
environmental water quality, and are resilient to future seismic and climate
change events. This level of investment is not possible for local
government under current borrowing settings and any attempts to increase
expenditure through rates will be unaffordable for communities.
3.10 Some
examples of the challenges facing Horowhenua District Council are as follows:
• The level of
investment required is not possible under current council financial settings.
Council is close to borrowing limits and is not able to continue to load debt
onto balance sheets. A new approach is needed that will address the balance
sheet limitations for council or the establishment of a new delivery model that
can raise capital based on asset ownership.
• Ongoing increases to
rates will be unacceptable and unaffordable. Investment cannot be based
on borrowing only and must also be based on a balance of funding between
current and future users to ensure a fair share of the true cost of the
service. To ensure long term financial sustainability, water investment for
asset renewals must be structured on an equitable intergenerational basis.
• Enabling growth and
housing supply will be increasingly challenging. The ability to meet
increased regulatory requirements (both costs and processes), for
environmental, drinking water and economic regulation will be challenging and
costly.
3.11 It will be critical that
any future water service model has the ability to deliver the level of
investment required. This will need a model that is able to borrow, and
over time can increase revenue from water users to a level where this
sustainably covers the true costs of services. This could be through some
form of charges or rates with a crucial consideration being to ensure that this
is that this is fair, affordable and delivers value for money for the
community. It would therefore be prudent to begin the process to develop a
water service plan.
4. Options and Discussion
Developing a water service
delivery plan
4.1 Based on
direction from Government to date and expected legislative change, council will
be required to develop a water service delivery plan by around mid-2025.
Council has options to develop this independently, or to work with other
councils in the region.
4.2 Developing
the plan independently would reduce some complexities of process and
decision-making requirements.
4.3 Working
with other councils across the regions we work within offers the opportunity to
collectively engage in legislative process, to ensure a sustainable, workable
future model is identified and can then be implemented. This may include a
specific model for council or some form of joint model with other councils.
4.4 While
there is no mandated future model, it is expected that the legislation will
create a new type of CCO / COC (Council Owned Company). This indicates
that the Government has a preferred model in mind.
4.5 In
the context of other demands and pressures on council, there is value in a
collective approach to ensure an effective and efficient approach to resources
and the ability to learn from and support other councils.
Working with the
Manawatu-Whanganui Region
4.6 Officers
reported to the Mayoral Forum in December that the seven councils had jointly
commissioned GHD to revisit the work undertaken in 2019/20 to assess the
options for establishing a regional approach to water services delivery to
understand our preferred approach and inform future discussions with government
and evidence based decision making by Elected Members.
4.7 It
was intended that the bulk of the work would, where possible, use existing data
sources, in particular the analysis of Entity E carried out by the DIA/NTU, and
not recreate data or analysis. Despite being amongst the first councils to
request the Entity related information, this has still not been forthcoming from
the NTU. The NTU has advised they intend to release information and data to
Councils and will advise how this will happen at the end of February.
Separately, there are indications from the NTU that there is no draft Entity E
AMP or other analysis to inform the regional work.
4.8 Given
the delay in receiving information from the NTU and the additional information
regarding the government’s policy direction CE’s agreed to reset
the approach to the work to appraise regional options; the GHD commission has
been paused, and Transition Managers have formally established a
‘Regional CCO Feasibility Project’.
4.9 A
Revised Project Brief has been developed by Officers and reviewed by CE’s
which recognizes that the priority is to give effect to the Government’s
new requirements, and strike a balance between high level overview and
sufficient detail to enable evidence-based decision-making.
4.10 The Mayoral
Forum’s role is to facilitate the consideration of the regional options
via this project. Regardless of the outcome of the Regional CCO Project,
individual Councils are, and will remain, the decision makers when it comes to
them joining a regional CCO.
4.11 The
purpose of the Manawatu-Whanganui Three Waters – Regional CCO Feasibility
Project (“Regional CCO Project”) is to “equip Chief
Executives and Elected Members with sufficient information to make an informed
decision as to whether they would recommend to their individual Councils to
proceed with some form of regional asset-owning Council Controlled Organisation
for the future delivery of Three Waters services, or not.”
4.12 The
Project will have four short phases which will establish the feasibility of
setting up a sub-regional asset owning CCO, consider how similar are the
charges, asset condition, and debt evels of each of the seven councils, and
establish what it could look like and what would need to happen for it to come
into being. The phases are:
· Establishing and agreeing the decision-making criteria to assess the
suitability of a regional CCO.
· Baseline assessment of the seven Councils and the regional position
in relation to water service delivery
· High Level Modelling of what a regional CCO model might look like;
this would identify the efficiency savings and impact of normalisation of
charges, high-level costs to establish, and sensitivity test sub-regional
options; it will also develop options for Governance arrangements and outline
the high-level establishment programme. It will only consider the existing CCO
model expected to be streamlined by the first Bill; it won’t consider the
option of setting up a new ‘Financially Separate CCO’ as details of
this are not expected to be available before June.
· Decision-Gate on proceeding in-principle with recommending to
individual councils some form of regional CCO, and the form of that.
4.13 Work
Package 3 will consider sub-regional variations to sensitivity test the
viability of a regional approach if one or more of the councils was to choose
not to pursue a regional approach within the Manawatu-Whanganui region. The
previously agreed scenarios are:
(a) M-W minus Horowhenua
(b) M-W minus Whanganui
(c) M-W minus Tararua
(d) M-W minus Ruapehu
(e) M-W minus Horowhenua, Whanganui, Ruapehu and Tararua
(f) Two halves: a) Ruapehu, Rangitikei, Whanganui; and b) Horowhenua,
Manawatu, Tararua and PNCC.
4.14 In
committing to this work, it is expected that each Council would want to
consider the impact on their own operations of choosing to pursue a Regional
CCO model and other options for working with neighbours outside the
Manawatū-Whanganui boundary. That work is out of the scope of this
project, and each individual Council is expected to consider for themselves the
options that sit outside a M-W Regional or Sub-regional approach to ensure they
can make a recommendation to their own Councils at the decision gate that
concludes this project.
4.15 The
project is expected to take until July. Progress with this work will be
reported back to the next meeting of the Mayoral Forum in June and the final
report will be presented at either a Mayoral Workshop or an extraordinary
meeting of the Mayoral Forum in mid-July. CE’s will retain oversight of
progress through the previously established Three Waters CE meeting.
Working with the Wellington Region
4.16 An
approach to enable regional collaboration on a water services plan has been
developed for council’s consideration. This is based on a
collaborative and non-binding partnership between councils in the Wellington
region to work through this process robustly and efficiently.
4.17 Importantly, the process
would not transfer any formal decision-making responsibilities or delegations
from council. Any future decisions on a water service plan, preferred
models or commitments to future change would remain with council.
4.18 A
commitment to regional collaboration would be confirmed by signing a joint
MoU. The draft MoU is attached see Appendix A.
4.19 As
part of this approach, councils would establish a joint governance oversight
group called the ‘Advisory Oversight Group’ (AOG) made up of
elected members. To date Councils have appointed the Mayor as the
representative on the Advisory Oversight Group. Iwi / Māori partner
representatives will also form part of this group, with the approach to this process
yet to be confirmed.
4.20 The AOG would be chaired
by an independent chair with suitable expertise in local government, financial
models and large scale utility operations.
4.21 The
draft terms of reference for the AOG is appended to the MoU, see Appendix
A. The AOG is not a formal joint committee and has no formal decision
making rights. Support would be provided by Chief Executives and a joint
project team.
4.22 Formation
of the AOG and signing of the MoU would signal a commitment by councils and Iwi
/ Māori partners to work together through a collaborative and non-binding
process.
4.23 The proposed structure
for a Wellington regional collaborative approach is shown below in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Proposed structure for regional approach to developing a joint water services
plan
Objectives and Output
4.24 The
water services plan and future models and options to be considered will need to
respond to agreed objectives and consider future approaches that are workable,
affordable, sustainable and meet the needs of communities and the
environment.
4.25 The key deliverable from
this joint process would be a joint water services plan for the region,
including options for future delivery models based on strategic option
selection and high-level design. This process and outputs do not preclude
any council from choosing to develop its own water services plan.
4.26 Critical
success factors are that the water services delivery plan and any future model:
· Is supported by all councils and Iwi / Māori partners which are
part of this process
· Is supported by the Government and enabled through
legislative change
· Is based on a sustainable funding model
· Enables commitment from councils and Government to move to subsequent
phases to deliver the plan – detailed design and implementation
4.27 The high-level process
and timing for this approach is shown in Figure 3. This is still being
developed and would be tested and refined working with the AOG.
Figure 3: Indicative process and timing
for Wellington regional water services plan
4.28 This
process anticipates a staged approach to development of a water services plan
aligned with the development of legislation. This would be focused on
clear testing of options based on agreed outcomes by around mid-2024.
This would inform the development of a high-level design for a future model to
support any required engagement and decision-making happening around late
2024. This would enable the completion of the water services plan by
early to mid-2025, aligned with the expected requirements of legislation.
5. Consultation
5.1 It is
expected that the proposed legislative changes and water services plans will be
of considerable interest to communities, partners and other stakeholders.
5.2 The process
will need to consider how this is effectively undertaken, including any
statutory requirements for engagement in relation water services plans or
future delivery models.
6. Legal Considerations
6.1 The
proposed legislative changes and water services plans will raise a range of
legal issues and considerations for councils to work through. These are
expected to be confirmed as part of the two proposed bills to be introduced
during 2024 and enacted by mid-2025.
7. Financial Considerations
7.1 There
are no immediate financial implications of this paper.
7.2 The
financial implications of committing to this process will be confirmed as part
of the establishment phase of the project. Currently Horowhenua District
Council has no remaining three waters reform transition funding, however it is
understood that reallocating three waters better off funding is an option. Once
the required funding are commitments are understood, a further report will be
provided to Council to seek direction on how this project will be funded.
7.3 The
medium to longer term implications of legislative change and any future water
services plan are expected to be significant. These will be a key
consideration for the process and any future decisions required of council.
8. Iwi Considerations
8.1 Changes
to water management will raise a range of significant issues for Iwi /
Māori including water quality, priorities for investment and how to give
effect to te mana o te wai.
8.2 As
part of this process, council will need to confirm an approach of how to
effectively work with Iwi / Māori partners. This approach would be
confirmed during the establishment phase.
|
Confirmation of statutory compliance
In accordance
with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:
a. containing
sufficient information about the options and their advantages and
disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,
b. is
based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views
and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the
significance of the decision.
|
9. Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
MoU Wellington Water Service
Plan - DRAFT - Feb 2024
|
355
|
|
Author(s)
|
Monique Davidson
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
Approved by
|
Monique Davidson
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
